[egwynn]

Note that, in the abstract, “vulgar” means “common” (as in “vulgar latin”). Indeed, its negative connotations come from that same sense: “common” people are unrefined.

[hinkley]

The association between vulgarity and propriety (and class distinctions) sort of ruins that word, particularly in the english speaking west.

I wonder if that's as big of a problem in the romance languages (which all treat left/right the same way - left = bad, right = good)

[LtdJorge]

Yes, in Spanish vulgar is used as inappropriate. We have "el vulgo" (el pueblo, the people), which kinda teaches you the correct meaning, popular, unrefined. But "vulgo" is seldomly used.

[jjgreen]

Indeed: are you sinister or dexterous?

[egwynn]

This goes pretty deep in English. I'd argue that the semantic intention behind the colloquial usage of "vulgar" is nearly inseparable from the "class distinction" baggage it carries. Consider these common synonyms and their etymologies:

- Rude: "coarse, rough, unfinished, unlearned" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/rude#etymonline_v_16610)

- Mean: "shared by all, common, general" (https://www.etymonline.com/word/mean#etymonline_v_12495)

And even synonyms like obscene, indecent, or disgusting, which don't evoke this distinction directly, still almost always ultimately rely on separating things based on what is "good" and "clean" according to class distinctions.