Fuck Terry Schiavo - this is what gets me all het up: people who use words while being wholly ignorant of their meaning in order to sound…what? Middlebrow? Certainly not highbrow; not many people are willing to risk throwing “hermeneutics” into a conversation for credibility unless they’re pretty damn sure they’ve got a basic grasp of its meaning (although they probably could and not have to worry about being called on it, unless they were at a Cultural Studies departmental meeting or something). No, mes freres, I’m thinking of words that people use as substitutes for their more prosaic synonyms without realizing they in fact are not synonyms at all. The biggest offender to my mind is “disinterested” - in the past 24 hours I’ve run into it twice: once in a novel (Eric Bogosian’s Mall) and once in a song (I think it was “Desperate Guys” by The Faint). So, in my continuing campaign to achieve basic English literacy, let me point out: “Disinterested” does not mean “uninterested”. It means impartial/unbiased. Of course, since it is almost universally misused, it’s easy to see why people would be confused (even some dictionaries give a second definition as “uninterested”, while pointing out that it’s technically incorrect). But still. This place is supposedly about fighting ignorance, so I’m trying to do my paltry bit for the cause.
Similarly, “fortuitous” means by chance, not “fortunate”. I guess the fact that it’s an adjective with the same prefix leads people to this conclusion; but then, why not assume it means “full of forts” or “fortifying”? Really, why do people fel the desire to try to form sentences using words they don’t understand? I’d think if you had a fear of sounding uneducated you wouldn’t try to compensate by using language in an uneducated manner. I mean, I don’t try to impress people by going on about quantum mechanics at parties. OK, I do. But in those cases, if someone calls me on something, I can always make up some obscure article as a reference to back up my claims. If you’re caught screwing up basic definitions, you’re pretty much left standing with a (hopefully figurative) dick in your mouth. So why not just say “uninterested” or “fortunate” in the first place? You’ll have no fear of being misunderstood, and people won’t think you’re putting on airs. Any others anybody can think of?
On a related note, I’ve completely given up on eradicating “definately” and the “its/it’s” difficulty in others’ writing. You have to know when you’re ignorance’s bitch.
People who gush about “loosing” some weight. ARRRRGGGGGGGHHH. Pronouncing FRustrate, as fustrate. Double ARRRGGGGGH.
Moot/mute…Sigh.
Now, I am a lousy typist, and I frequently make the its/it’s mistake. I’ll do it correctly three times in a post, and mess up the fourth time just from not paying attention well enough. In fact the ’ is not my friend. I’m forever typing it into the wrong part of a word.
It doesn’t bug me when people who are obviously not too bright make these mistakes, or if it’s obvious that it is a typo and that this person normally uses it correctly. But what kills me is when it’s from someone that you KNOW is intelligent, but it’s just done in a careless lazy way.
I dated an engineer with a very high IQ. He was always typing stuff like "so, when are you comming back to the states next? I mean, I can see if the word is a big one, or unusual…but good grief, one of the most annoying things about these kinds of mistakes (again, not just typos, but where it’s obvious the person is just careless and lazy) is that most of them are simple words.
I don’t get it. Doesn’t it just grate on their ears as just so WRONG? My mom worked with a woman who, in a professional position as a customer service rep at a municipal utility company would, say stuff like “no we don’t got none”. How can a person surrounded by others speaking english correctly (for the most part) not pick up on this?
*Sense 2a has been influenced in meaning by fortunate. It has been in standard if not elevated use for some 70 years, but is still disdained by some critics. Sense 2b, a blend of 1 and 2a, is virtually unnoticed by the critics. Sense 1 is the only sense commonly used in negative constructions. *
Like I said regarding “disinterested”, just because dictionaries make concessions (with explanations/apologies) to the fact that the majority of people can’t use the fucking word correctly still doesn’t make it acceptable. Lots of inaccuracies are in standard use (“could of”, the previously noted “definately”, “alright”) - that doesn’t change the fact that it’s not the actual meaning of the term; it just means the dipshits have hijacked the word to the point that it’s begrudgingly noted as being a common misunderstanding of the intended usage.
In its best-established sense, fortuitous means “happening by accident or chance.” Thus, a fortuitous meeting may have either fortunate or unfortunate consequences. For decades, however, the word has often been used in reference to happy accidents, as in The company’s profits were enhanced as the result of a fortuitous drop in the cost of paper. This use may have arisen because fortuitous resembles both fortunate and felicitous. Whatever its origin, the use is well established in the writing of reputable authors. ·The additional use of fortuitous to mean “lucky or fortunate,” is more controversial, as in He came to the Giants in June as the result of a fortuitous trade that sent two players back to the Reds. This use dates back at least to the 1920s, when H.W. Fowler labeled it a malapropism, but it is still widely regarded as incorrect.
Fuck Terry Schiavo - this is what gets me all het up: people who use words while being wholly ignorant of their meaning in order to sound…what? Middlebrow? Certainly not highbrow;…
If I’m not mistaken, you really mean use in the thread title since usage means the usual, or accepted practice.
Yeah, the whole “loosing” weight thing is pretty ubiquitous, too - I always wonder if they ever write about having a “lose” shoelace?
I think everybody understands typos; if you use “its” correctly three times, it’s safe to assume you know what you’re talking about. I know what you mean about laziness, too - “comming” would make me want to tear my hair out, especially if I was dealing with someone whose intellect I respected. Maybe it’s not fair, but grammar/spelling is one of the main factors a lot of us use in making quick judgements on one’s intellectual capacity.
Never ran across “Mute/moot” before - you’d think it’d be easier to avoid now with all the remote controls people use.
If I ever heard anybody say any of those, I’d vomit on them.
According to dictionary.com (again; I’m at work, so no real dictionaries around), the most common (first) definition is: The act, manner, or amount of using; use.
Your definition, A usual, habitual, or accepted practice,
comes in second (with no footnotes on usage, as in “fortuitous” and “disinterested”). So neither of us is really mistaken.
People who think language is static, that meanings don’t change (the OP’s “disinterested” example has flip-flopped before), that their dialect is privileged, that dictionaries (which tend to be behind the times) are sacrosanct, and that they can tell other people what words “really mean” or how to pronounce them.
Yeah, meanings change; however, just because you or a bunch of teenagers or people who don’t bother to look up the fucking meaning of a word before applying it use it incorrectly doesn’t mean its actual meaning is altered, does it? When authorities agree that the definition favored by the “common” man is a result of ignorance, I don’t think that speaks as much to the elasticity of language as it does to the ignorance of the people misusing the word. As for dialect being privileged, I don’t see where I even mentioned anything to do with that issue. Jumping to a conclusion about what “fortuitous” or “disinterested” mean based on similar-sounding words, or spelling “could’ve” “could of” have nothing to do with what region you live in, they have to do with your inability to grasp certain basic aspects of the English language. Maybe it’s sanctimonious, but I fail to see how it’s bullshit. OTOH, standing up for the dumbfucks too lazy to look the shit up before acting like they know what they’re saying strikes me as just that.
No intended attempt to twist the definition to fit my needs; I just grabbed the definition and not the examples. I see what you’re saying, and if that’s the way it’s meant to be interpreted, then my wording was indeed wrong (see how easy that is?). But I took the commas and the “or” to signify separate entities; i.e. “The act of using” (which was what I meant) or “the manner of using” or “the amount of using”.
I can only hope that someday I’ll know as much about language as you, woodie. Maybe I’ll grow up to be a writer, or an editor, or a proofreader, or even a teacher. Wouldn’t that be swell! Maybe one day I’ll be teaching English at a university.
But nah… who am I kidding? Now, if you’ll excuse me, I gotta go hang out at the convenience store with my buds, smoke some cigs, read Mad magazine, and listen to Insane Clown Posse.
What’s bullshit is if you understand what the fuck the so called “dip shits” are trying to say to you; what’s the fucking problem?
Basicaly, what you’re doing is no different than if I were to correct an Asian guy (who speaks english as a second language) on the correct way to say “Look”
If he say’s: “Rook over there SHAKES.”
I’d be a REAL asshole if I were to say to him in response "It’s look not rook :rolleyes:
Yeah, that’s what I was saying. Come on, now. When I said “you” I meant the general “you”, not you specifically. See how misunderstanding word meanings can lead to heartache?
(p.s. I’m pretty sure the shortened form of my user nmae would be spelled “woody”. But, you know, live and let live, I always say.)
No, it’s not the same thing at all. An “Asian” (I’m guessing you mean specifically of Chinese descent) guy not being able to pronounce a word in a second language because there’s no equivalent consonant sound in his native tongue would not lead me to think he was trying to sound more “educated”, as would someone who used a word they didn’t understand the meaning of in conversation.
No, that’s exactly the point, if the meaning gets muddled, I don’t know if you mean by chance or by good luck if you say fortuitous. There is a difference, and it’s worth preserving.