On the dog issue, I think Esperanto usage seems much like the english, and I agree with the hover translations: mutt/mongrel/cur.

As with most word building, "hundaĉo" calls upon our human sense of pragmatics. Traditionally, cross-breeds are considered less pure, or lower in quality. Hence why a term that in its purest sense perhaps should just mean a dishevelled or poorly trained dog, can carry the meaning of cross-breed. Much like how "cur" can carry both of these meanings (e.g. according to google "an aggressive or unkempt dog, especially a mongrel" ).

EldanarLambetur:On the dog issue, I think Esperanto usage seems much like the english, and I agree with the hover translations: mutt/mongrel/cur.

As with most word building, "hundaĉo" calls upon our human sense of pragmatics. Traditionally, cross-breeds are considered less pure, or lower in quality. Hence why a term that in its purest sense perhaps should just mean a dishevelled or poorly trained dog, can carry the meaning of cross-breed. Much like how "cur" can carry both of these meanings (e.g. according to google "an aggressive or unkempt dog, especially a mongrel" ).

First I have to take issue with "according to google." Does google have its own dictionary? If so, what sources is it using? Please be more specific. I have checked four dictionaries now, including the complete OED. The only support for this sense of the word is one definition of cur (only in the OED). It is not present among the approximately twenty definitions of mongrel or mutt.

After the term gay was adopted for homosexuals, a whole generation of kids grew up saying "that's gay," where gay was a synonym for "bad." This was very hurtful. As views on homosexuality changed (as poignantly evidenced by this morning's U.S. Supreme court ruling) this usage became less and less common and is now considered bad form by most careful and sensitive speakers. And yet even this usage appears in the same dictionaries that do not mention the definition we are discussing for mutt/cur/mongrel. My point is that conflating an attitude expressed by some in usage, but not born out or accepted predominantly in mainstream lexicons or standing on its own merits, should not be taken lightly. I own a dog which is a mutt. When I call it a mutt I mean precisely one thing, and it is not disparaging.

I think that it is fine if cur/mongrel/mutt are accepted as alternative answers, I just don't think they should be offered as the model translation, when none of main dictionaries (including PIV) support that usage.

seveer:After the term gay was adopted for homosexuals, a whole generation of kids grew up saying "that's gay," where gay was a synonym for "bad."

It wasn't a synonym for bad, it was (still is for the yoot) a synonym for something a bit 'soft' or namby-pamby, or something uncool. Not bad.

Vestitor:
It wasn't a synonym for bad, it was (still is for the yoot) a synonym for something a bit 'soft' or namby-pamby, or something uncool. Not bad.

See entry 4.2: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gay#Adjective
Also note that while this usage is not flagged as "dated," the one you mention, directly above it at 4.1, is considered "dated." It's not just wiktionary. The same sense appears in the online OED at entry 9.

But maybe you have a better line on the "yoot" than the lexicographers

Vestitor:

seveer:After the term gay was adopted for homosexuals, a whole generation of kids grew up saying "that's gay," where gay was a synonym for "bad."

It wasn't a synonym for bad, it was (still is for the yoot) a synonym for something a bit 'soft' or namby-pamby, or something uncool. Not bad.

I have definitely seen the term used in a generic disparaging sense of "that's bad" or "that's stupid".

Tempodivalse:

Vestitor:

seveer:After the term gay was adopted for homosexuals, a whole generation of kids grew up saying "that's gay," where gay was a synonym for "bad."

It wasn't a synonym for bad, it was (still is for the yoot) a synonym for something a bit 'soft' or namby-pamby, or something uncool. Not bad.

I have definitely seen the term used in a generic disparaging sense of "that's bad" or "that's stupid".

That's the ONLY way I've ever seen it used.

Surely not the only way? It still gets used regularly to refer to homosexual proclivities.

I don't live in the USA though and people here only use it refer to things that are considered poncey. Not 'bad'.

I would like to point out again as I have many times before: language is not mathematics. Language is the linguistic expression of human beings unless you are talking about a computer language. I might even question the use of the word "language" when one refers to a mathematical formula for creating computer programs. Human language is remarkable because it allows for "displacement" i.e. refering to things that are not present or which/who may not exist (like "unicorns"). In human language we can insinuate things that we are not talking about or we may remind others of things that we do not intend to refer to. This is hardly possible in mathematical equations to build computer programs. I do not know C+ but I have the impression that one must remain rather straight forward when using it. Computers do not have fuzzy brains. Humans using language do.
Therefore, language - whether it be Esperanto or Ancient Chinese - cannot be programmed completely. Furthermore, every human being has her or his own "idiolect", i.e. their personal language and every group of people (like families, classes, offices, work halls, scouts, troups, actors, bankers, etc.) has its own "dialect" which cannot be foreseen by any articifial mind. When Dr. Zamenhof proposed Esperanto he did not think that the name of it would be Esperanto and no program could have soundly predicted that. The expression "krokodili" came about - it was not predictable. Nobody could "program" that into a language.
Then we have "poetic license". Without it our language would be very drab. We have slang.
Language is not a living thing but it is produced by living things - us. And we are creative, finite, hopeful, imaginative and more. Duolingo cannot be more than human.

Vestitor:Surely not the only way? It still gets used regularly to refer to homosexual proclivities.

I don't live in the USA though and people here only use it refer to things that are considered poncey. Not 'bad'.

Well, yes, THAT way, but I was referring to the other slang way, as opposed to thy "synonym for something a bit 'soft' or namby-pamby, or something uncool."

I've never heard in used in this way. Other than its "proper" meaning, I've only ever heard it used as a synonym for "stupid" or "bad"

I can't believe that. I've even seen people in American films use it this way, so it must have some traction in the culture.

Are you a Quaker or something similar? What's all the thee-ing and thou-ing for?