English uses one register for some words, e.g. "coal, handbag" and the othe register for other words, e.g. "carbon", "metabolism".

You're missing the point of "but the example you give of a low register" - English does not use the lower register in that context. It's noticeable by contrast with other languages where that higher register is largely absent, which do use the standard register throughout.

This guy gets it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24981922 , for what it's worth. If you don't think if it's a significant point, then stop reading.

Of course English doesn't use the low register in this context - which is why I'm wondering why it was provided as an example of English having two registers. And "coal" and "carbon" are not interchangeable besides for register. They just mean different things.

> If you don't think if it's a significant point, then stop reading.

My point is that I either don't understand the point, or the point is wrong. Not that I think it is an insignificant point. And that isn't a very productive way to share messages on a message board.

> Of course English doesn't use the low register in this context - which is why I'm wondering why it was provided as an example of English having two registers

If English "doesn't use the low register in this context", then that implies that there _are_ different registers for different contexts, right?

In English, that is. In Dutch or German or Swedish, there are not.

> And "coal" and "carbon" are not interchangeable.

Um? No one said that they were, and that's not the point in any form. We're talking about formation of (related) words. IDK if this conversation is worthwhile, to be honest. You seem to be actively evading the point.

I never argued that English only uses one register. I argued that you can't point to English having two registers by pointing out a usage of a single register and a non-existent example in another register.

e.g. "There are two ways for offense to score in American football. One is a touchdown. Translating a touchdown into soccer is equivalent of saying the ball is kicked past the goal line, but when you literally reconvert that back to American football, you can't score by kicking the ball across the goal line.". That does not prove that there are two ways to score in football. That proves that there is at least one way to score in football.

> IDK if this conversation is worthwhile, to be honest. You seem to be actively evading the point.

Bizarre coming from someone who just said "stop reading if you don't like it".