# simple / complex



## ThomasK

Do you have any non-Latin equivalent or translation in your language?

Dutch has: 
- _simpel_, but also _*eenvoudig *_(lit. onefold, so lit. the same as _sim-plex_)
- _complex_, but also *ingewikkeld *(liit. en-velopped --- see : *ontwikkeld*,de-veloped)
There seems to be a parallel between *voud *(< _vouwen_, to fold), and_* wikkel *_(< _wikkelen_, to (en)velop)


----------



## Yondlivend

My two cents for English, since simple can have many meanings depending on the context:

Simple:
- *Homely* can, in some cases, mean simple (Merriam-Webster's definitions 3a) "unaffectedly natural; simple", 3b) "not elaborate or complex."  The Oxford English Dictionary has "simple and unpretentious" as does the American Heritage Dictionary.  Collins Dictionary also has "unpretentious.")

- *Unfussy* which, according to those dictionaries, means uncluttered or uncomplicated.  Collins has "not characterized by overelaborate detail."

- *Onefold *does exist but it just means "consisting of one part/element/undivided whole."

- *Bare* refers to things that are plain, unadorned, very basic and clean.

- *Straightforward* means something that is to the point and easy to understand/follow.

If you'd like, I can include sentences with the word simple and then show how these words could be used in place of it.  I can work on synonyms for complex later, but hopefully these are something like what you were looking for.


----------



## ThomasK

Good Lord, I had not realized 'simple' could be that... complicated. 

I must say I had been thinking of the 'ordinary' meaning 'easy', 'unaffectedly natural', not complicated. My focus is on Germanic/... English equivalents, non-Latin, though. Your words do refer to _clutter _for complex, and _plain, clean _and _home_, maybe _straight _(not crooked ?) for simple; that is certainly interesting, I had not thought of that, had focused mainly on this _layer/fold _vs. _envelop/clutter _root meaning.


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek:

*Simplex*: «Απλός, -ή, -ό» /a'plos a'pli a'plo/ (masc. fem. neut.) from the Classical «ἁπλόος/ἁπλοῦς, ἁπλόη/ἁπλῆ, ἁπλόον/ἁπλοῦν» hă'plŏŏs [uncontracted]/hā'plous [contracted] (masc.), hă'plŏē [uncontracted]/hā'plē [contracted] (fem.), hă'plŏŏn [uncontracted]/hā'ploun [contracted] (neut.)--> _single, simple, plain_ from PIE base *sem-, _together, same_ > *sm̥-pl-os, _one, together_.
*Complex*: 
a) «Πολύπλοκος, -κη, -κο» /po'liplokos po'liploci po'liploko/ (masc. fem. neut.) from the same Classical adj. «πολύπλοκος» pŏ'lŭplŏkŏs--> _tangled, complex_; compound, prefix adv. and adj. «πολυ-»--> _many, much_ (PIE base *ple-/*plā-, _much_) + fem. noun «πλοκὴ» plŏ'kē /plo'ci/ in modern pronunciation--> _twining, twisting, interweaving_ (PIE base *pel-/*plēk, _to weave, plait_).
b) «Περίπλοκος, -κη, -κο» /pe'riplokos pe'riploci pe'riploko/ (masc. fem. neut.) from the same Classical adj. «περίπλοκος» pĕ'rĭplŏkŏs--> _entwined_; compound, prefix and adv. «περι-»--> _around, about, beyond_ (PIE base *per-, _through, across, beyond_) + «πλοκὴ» (see above).
c) «Πολλαπλός, -πλή, -πλό» /pola'plos pola'pli pola'plo/ (masc. fem. neut.) from the Classical adj. «πολλαπλόος/πολλαπλοῦς» pŏllă'plŏŏs [uncontracted]/pŏllā'plous [contracted]--> _multifold, multicompound_; compound, prefix adv. and adj. «πολυ-/πολλα-»--> _many, much + _«ἁπλόος/ἁπλοῦς».


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, Apmoy. Isn't there a -plos element in 'aplos' as well ? Could you associate this weaving with layers as well ? (Het Latin 'plex'...)


----------



## Yondlivend

ThomasK said:


> Good Lord, I had not realized 'simple' could be that... complicated.
> 
> I must say I had been thinking of the 'ordinary' meaning 'easy', 'unaffectedly natural', not complicated.


It's funny, isn't it?  Merriam-Webster has 10 main definitions for simple, though, including "innocent", "modest", and "stupid."



ThomasK said:


> My focus is on Germanic/... English equivalents, non-Latin, though. Your words do refer to _clutter _for complex, and _plain, clean _and _home_, maybe _straight _(not crooked ?) for simple; that is certainly interesting, I had not thought of that, had focused mainly on this _layer/fold _vs. _envelop/clutter _root meaning.



I don't really know of all many words using that idea in English, but it's there in the suffix -fold and probably in other adjectives.

Anyway, onto the next list.

Complex:
- *Tangled* is taken to mean complex by all of the dictionaries I used for the previous list.  "Complicated", "exceedingly complex", "confused and chaotic" occur in Collins, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford respectively.
- *Mazelike *(possibly written as two words), *M**azy*, or similar derived terms from maze could potentially have this meaning, as a definition of maze as a noun is "a confusing mess of information", "something confusingly elaborate or complicated" or a "complex network of paths" (Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Collins respectively).  As a verb, maze means to perplex.
- *Bewildering* is a form of the verb to bewilder, meaning to confuse, especially by complexity.
- *K**notty* is similar to tangled.  Oxford and Collins have "Extremely difficult or complex/intricate."  Merriam-Webster describes something so full of complications to the point of being unsolvable.

There are probably others, but these get the basic idea of it.  Fussy does not really have a sense of complex as unfussy has a sense of simple; it just means too detailed or decorated, but not necessarily complicated.  One thing I find interesting about this thread is how complexity seems to be strongly linked to woven/tangled things.  I wonder if languages outside the IE group have similar associations?


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> Thanks, Apmoy. Isn't there a -plos element in 'aplos' as well ? Could you associate this weaving with layers as well ? (Het Latin 'plex'...)


Yes you are absolutely right, the productive suffix «-πλόος/πλοῦς» (-'plŏŏs [uncontracted]/-'plous [contracted]) suggests _a fold_


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, Apmoy and Yondlivend! 

As for the synonyms you refer to, Y: quite amazing again. I suppose the main distinctions are one-fold/ manyfold (literally), straight/ skewed, maze-like, under control/wild, loose/ knot. 

But indeed, my focus was on the layers especially but maybe the weaving aspect is equally interesting (whereas that is in itself not negative: texts, textiles --- if kept under control ;-)), the twining. I suppose tying leads to knots, among which also Gordian ones, the ones we get stuck into, or something. The _plos _in Greek refers to folding and weaving, so it seems. I think the straight/ skewed... aspect is important too.


----------



## Yondlivend

Manifold (as you said literally many-fold) for whatever reason does not have a sense of complex, but diverse.

Do you have a compound such as manifold in Dutch?  I took a quick look in wiktionary and found a noun _veelvoud_.  Dutch veel (if that's how it's spelled) is a cognate to English fele, which was used in OE (as fela) but probably only exists in certain dialects now if at all.  Interestingly OE had _felafeald_ along with _maniġfeald_ and _m__issenliċ_, but as far as I know only manifold survived.


----------



## ThomasK

You're right, but many-fold reminded me of _ingewikkeld_, lit. envelop(p)ed, and I got carried away a little... Interesting this *fele*...


----------



## Yondlivend

The only word that doesn't seem to mention the patterns you listed above is bewilder.  It has a connection (just by the sound of it I'm sure people already see it) to wilderness, so perhaps the idea is getting lost in the woods.  I understand the idea of confused, but I'm not sure what semantic developments (is that the right term?) led it to be associated with complexity.  Maybe the woods were like a maze?


----------



## ThomasK

I think so, you know: I associate wildness (and 'wild forests') with uncontrollability and therefore complexity...


----------



## Forero

German has _einfach_, as in Einstein's famous version of Occham's razor "so einfach wie möglich, nur nicht einfacher" (as simple as possible, only not simpler). So is _fach_ German for _plex_/_fold_?


----------



## AutumnOwl

_*Swedish:*
Enke_l (from a Gothic word meaning alone) - simple, single
_Sammansatt, flerdelad_ (put together, many parts/layers) - complex


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for these. Nothing more German than kompliziert?


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks for these. Nothing more German than kompliziert? 

I also found _vielschichtig, verzwickt, verwickelt, _meaning respectively: multi-layered, and then two neg. verbs containing *ver*-, one parallelling the Dutch _ingewikkeld_, the other containing a verb like 'to pinch' (zwicken). Just like knifflig, I now understand, another synonym, I think, which adds another verb meaning to complex, namely pinching, though it's not quite clear to me how the two can be combined. Or: natural vs. forced ? [I don't know anything about the use of the different synonyms in German though]


----------



## AutumnOwl

ThomasK said:


> Thanks for these. Nothing more German than kompliziert?


There are many synonyms to complex in Swedish: invecklad, komplicerad, svårförstådd, svåröverskådlig, krånglig, knepig, mångfacetterad, tilltrasslad, intrikat, besvärlig and so on.


----------



## hui

*Finnish:*

_yksinkertainen_ (one-fold)
_monimutkainen _("many-curved")


----------



## mataripis

*Tagalog: 1.) simple= payak/isahan/ madali/ tuwid /may kababawan         2.)  complex=   Masalimuot/ maramihan/ magkapatong/patung patong/ may lalim/ dagandagan*


----------



## ThomasK

Why so many words? What is the ma- element ? What does may mean ?


----------



## mataripis

ThomasK said:


> Why so many words? What is the ma- element ? What does may mean ?


 1.)payak directly mean simple/ isahan = only one/ madali= easy/ tuwid= straight/ may kababawan=( may= there is) (kababawan= shallowness?)   i think in different cases these words will give the meaning "simple" or not complex.   2.) Masalimuot= (ma= prefix(contracted "may" added to salimuot= many ways/routes)  ,  maramihan= by group or in many series      ,  magkapatong=  double as in double standards, patung patung= with different/several layers or levels or systems,   may lalim= there is depth,   dagan dagan= same as patung patung but not in order or scrambled files. (as in scrambled files= dagandagang patas)    all these words are saying more than 2 are described and it is complex.


----------



## ThomasK

There are some very remarkable things in your notes, M! 
- I see_ straight _turn up (see my question at the C Café)
-  I see the idea of layers turn up at 'complex'
There might be more, but I'd need more information... I'll be back, I think...


----------



## OneStroke

Most words that aren't concrete nouns in Chinese are Sinitic (even words like 'Internet' and 'email' are Sinitic), so it shouldn't be surprising that our words for 'simple' and 'complex' are Sinitic. (The only Latinate words that I can think of (except concrete nouns) in common usage are 邏輯 and 幽默.) Anyway,

(All are TC/SC. Morphemes meaning 'simple' and 'complex' are in *boldface*.)

Simple - 簡單/简单 jiǎndān (*簡/简= simple*, compare 簡體字/简体字, 'simplified characters'; 單/单 = single); 
Complex - 複雜/复杂 fùzá (*複/复 = multiple, complicated*; 雜/杂 = miscellaneous, messy);
繁複/繁复 fánfù (繁 = complicated, cumbersome, compare 繁體字/繁体字, 'traditional characters'; *複/复= multiple, complicated*)


----------



## ThomasK

Great, though I don't understand it all. But is there a literal sense of 'layered-ness' implied ? Your simple focus on the singleness, which could refer to that. Is there any metaphoric meaning implied? I suppose not...


----------



## OneStroke

I can't think of a Chinese word for 'many layers' that could mean complicated. There are a couple of ways to say 'multi-layered', but that's what they mean: 'multi-layered'.


----------



## Forero

OneStroke said:


> I can't think of a Chinese word for 'many layers' that could mean complicated. There are a couple of ways to say 'multi-layered', but that's what they mean: 'multi-layered'.


What about the idea of folding or duplicating?

In Japanese, I suppose that would be the _ori_ of _origami_.


----------



## OneStroke

Forero said:


> What about the idea of folding or duplicating?
> 
> In Japanese, I suppose that would be the _ori_ of _origami_.



Chinese 重疊/重叠 (chóngdié) only refers to overlapping (both of the senses in English).


----------



## fdb

In Arabic:
Simple = basīṭ بسيط connected with the verb basaṭa “to spread out, flatten”
Complex = murakkab مركب passive participle of the verb rakkaba, originally: “to mount (a person on a horse)”, then: “to set (a stone in a ring), to assemble (the components of something)”.


----------



## ThomasK

Great hint, FdB. I just wondered how one moves (leaps...) from mounting to setting, assembling - or do they have to do with putting simply?


----------



## fdb

No, the basic meaning of the root r-k-b is "to ride an animal". The causative stem (rakkaba) is thus basically "to make some one ride an animal, put him on horseback". Then: "to set a stone" (as if making the precious stone ride horseback on the ring). And finally: to assemble any "complex" object out of "simple" elements.


----------



## ThomasK

I see, i see, thanks !


----------



## Encolpius

Yes, we do.
simpel = *egyszerű *< egy (one)
complex = *összetett *< össze- samen + tett (Gerund of the verb tesz doen), something like "samengedaan".


----------



## ThomasK

But the doing is not like a layer, I suppose. However, I do recognize the idea of a 'many' concept...


----------



## e2-e4 X

In *Russian* there are two antonyms, "простой" and "сложный", that correspond to the two English words, "simple" and "complex", and their underlying meanings correspond to those of the English words. That is, being "простой" refers to not having structure, not having parts, whereas the adjective "сложный" refers to having a more complex structure; it looks to be a passive verbal adjective, formed from the verb "сложить" ("to put", "to assemble", "to put together", "to pile"; the corresponding regular past passive participle is "сложенный").

Of course, in Russian there is also a lot of other words that have related meanings, like "tangled" or "artless", and that can, in certain contexts, play by extension the role of words "простой" or "сложный", but they are just that — words with related, yet differing, meanings.

The words "простой" and "сложный" can also describe things, that are easy or hard to understand or to operate upon in some other way. And there is also another couple of words that have these meanings, namely "лёгкий" and "тяжёлый" (they are related to weight).


----------



## ThomasK

Interesting notes, thanks. What would be root of /proston/(?) and /sprosivi/ (????). Not having structure especially: is that one word?


----------



## e2-e4 X

ThomasK said:


> Interesting notes, thanks. What would be root of /proston/(?) and /sprosivi/ (????).


The word "простой" is a simple word in modern Russian, this adjective means what it means (well, of course it has extended meanings, too). The root is "прост" ("prost"), the rest is a case/number ending.


> Not having structure especially: is that one word?


I am not sure I understand the question. I already said it looks to be formed from a verb, which in some way means "creating structure", that is, with putting together things. The verb has a root ("лож") and a prefix ("с"), that mean more or less "put" and "together", correspondingly (the root "plex", by the way, appears instead to mean a net). The adjectival suffix "н" is used to form the adjective. Overall, the stem of the adjective is "сложн", which is transliterated differently by different people, one variant is "slozhn" (where "zh" means that consonant).


----------



## ThomasK

Perfect answer, e2 zx 5 ! ;-)


----------



## arielipi

Hebrew:
simple is pashut
complex is murkav


----------

