English words that conflict with your language.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

sound yes, but not sight... Guess it is because sounds and smells can be pleasing or not, while sights rarely actually affect you much physicly.

*except for women*

You're wrong, "that's a sight" can be negative or positive, just like a smell or sound; it needs to be qualified in exactly the same way, "That's a horrible sight" or "that's a fine sight".

See.

[Kadagar_AV]

You're wrong, "that's a sight" can be negative or positive, just like a smell or sound; it needs to be qualified in exactly the same way, "That's a horrible sight" or "that's a fine sight".

See.

I think I didn't explain well enough. Yes, a sight can of course also be "good" or "bad".

However, sights dont have the same physical impact as smells and noises.

A sight you usually need to explain more vividly than a smell. If something smells bad, it's enough to say that it smells bad and people will get your point.

Bad smell - physicly affects your nose...
Bad noise - physicly affects your ears...

But a sight? It isnt hurting the eyes. Thus you need to be more elaborate when you describe it...

I guess that is the reason why we lack a word for "bad" sight, while we have it for smells and noise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think I didn't explain well enough. Yes, a sight can of course also be "good" or "bad".

However, sights dont have the same physical impact as smells and noises.

A sight you usually need to explain more vividly than a smell. If something smells bad, it's enough to say that it smells bad and people will get your point.

Bad smell - physicly affects your nose...
Bad noise - physicly affects your ears...

But a sight? It isnt hurting the eyes. Thus you need to be more elaborate when you describe it...

I guess that is the reason why we lack a word for "bad" sight, while we have it for smells and noise.

Ah, I see. Well we have "stink" and "stench" there, a "smell" is just a verbal noun.