1

As I understand it (not being a native speaker), a beholder has a more active relation to the scene or object he is beholding. It is "in the eye of the beholder", but not in the eye of the spectator who is passively spectating, not relating him- or herself to the object in a way that necessarily implies a subjective evaluation. This personal distance is shared by the observer who, in contrast to the spectator, has an abstract or technical interest in the object of observance. A viewer seems to me the least specific superordinate concept for all three of them, of course also encompassing a non-personal, technical meaning.

Is this understanding correct and are there any other semantic differences I may have missed so far? Does the term "beholder" give an archaic impression?

Thank you for any contribution!

  • Did you look any of them up in a dictionary? Did their definitions correspond with your interpretation? – Mari-Lou A Sep 11 '15 at 12:54
  • 2
    Etymologically, behold relates to OE bihaldan = keep hold of, belong to, so obviously it implies a more "active" role than simply spectating, looking, watching. But it's a dated/formal/poetic term - it just so happens that in the eye of the beholder has become something of a fixed expression, so some people will naturally interpret all meanings/connotations for the verb specifically in relation to that one thriving usage. – FumbleFingers Sep 11 '15 at 13:06
  • Thank you FumbleFingers and Mari-Lou. Yes, of course I looked them up, but still couldn't differentiate their meaning to a satisfactory degree except for being pretty sure that viewer is the most general term. It is good to know that the etymology of beholder is in agreement with my sprachgefühl. – Timar Sep 11 '15 at 13:14
  • Although I have never seen beholder used in modern prose other than in the phrase eye of the beholder. I wonder why, but if used separately it may seem odd. – hrishioa Sep 11 '15 at 17:07
  • Thank you! I did suspect so, because I have never seen or heard it in contemporary English outside of that idiom. (But I think I have seen it in Elizabethean or Romantic English prose and poetry). No dictionary I have consulted, though, explicitly categorised it as outdated or archaic. – Timar Sep 13 '15 at 16:57
1

These words are synonyms. They mean the same thing. They can be used interchangeably except with idioms like, "In the eye of the beholder". Saying "In the eye of the spectator" has no grammar or meaning issues, however it breaks the idiom.

Idioms don't always react well to synonyms. Idioms are habits we share. The well worn path we always take to a meaning. Start down that path and then veer off with a synonym and you surprise people.

  • Yes, idioms are weird. You can say in the ear (or nose) of the beholder if you want to analogize it to sounds or scents. – Barmar Sep 12 '15 at 20:37
  • Thank you for the answer. As I have tried to elaborate, I am well aware that those words are largely synonymous. However, there is no such thing in any living language as a perfect synonym. Being synonymous to another word is not a binary property. We consider words synonymous when their semantic fields show a significant overlap. Those fields are fuzzy, though, and never 100% identical. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any need for using several words in the first place. What I asked for in this case are exactly those subtle semantic differences existing between synonyms. – Timar Sep 13 '15 at 16:46
  • Could I say: "Posters should be brief so that the spectator can read them in three minutes or less" without sounding old-fashioned or silly? – Christian Geiselmann Jul 26 '18 at 15:56
  • @ChristianGeiselmann it sounds odd. You could take you own advice: post like you have 3 minutes to make a point. – candied_orange Jul 26 '18 at 22:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.