Another misused word usage thread

The BBQ Pit
41

No, I don’t think it’s the same thing. For “actual” (the American Heritage dictionary also lists “based in fact” as a definition) the meaning I chose had at least something to do with your definition - I don’t see that as a lazy colloquialism, I see it as a (possibly arguable) logical expansion. Whereas with “disinterested” and “fortuitous”, the way they’re used that I’m complaining about has fuck-all to do with their “real” meaning and is a result of ignorance and faulty inference. Look: if you were hanging out in a dorm (for example) and everyone in the TV room or whatever kept saying “suburban” when what they obviously meant to describe was “urban”, would you think, “Cool, they’re helping the language evolve!”, or “These people are pretty damned stupid”?

Don’t get me wrong, I know what you’re saying. I’m not some old academic who’s typing this from his leather study in his armchair surrounded by my built-in oak library shelves full of books on the decline of modern discourse and mounted animal heads. Hell, I’m not even college educated. But it bugs me. Does it affect my blood pressure? Probably not. Am I petty? Maybe so. All kinds of pointless shit bothers me - from drivers who don’t signal to Donald Trump to McDonald’s commercials trying to be “hip”. Not that I lose sleep over any of it, but they’re annoyances, and I voice my annoyance. I freely admit I haven’t achieved Buddha nature, though I do find that state of mind admirable and strive to reach it. And I try not to tell anybody how they should live their lives. But I still think people come off as ignorant when they misuse words in this manner, and I don’t see anything wrong with politely correcting them.

So let’s say you’re right, and I’m just being rigid and reactionary in my views. And I’ll concede this may be the case, and I’m not taking the more enlightened approach. And both these words have indeed incorporated these bastardized meanings and that’s fine, just the inexorable flow of living language. I’ll then amend my rant to the fact that I find it sad that these new definitions have arisen because of general laziness and/or ignorance. And yes, I realize that many words have undergone changes for just such reasons. And yes, I still have a problem with it. What’s wrong with pitting willful ignorance as a cultural motivator?

42

Individual screwups are not the same as evolution here…

Ow, my language! I think you broke it.

If I can add my own opinion without getting a lecture about how pretentious I am for knowing what a word means before I use it, here’s my recent peeve: I’ve been watching a lot of basketball, and I keep hearing announcers talk about the “differential” between the shot clock and game clock at the end of the game. The word they want is “difference.” I don’t know why they need a couple of extra letters. DIFFERENCE would do just fine in that context.

43

I agree with that last statement.

No, I’m not telling you that something becomes true because most people believe it.

I am telling you that the meaning of words is socially determined, just as is the value of money. Words are not facts.

A dollar is worth what you can get for it. A word means what people understand it to mean. It is literally impossible for “most people” to use a word incorrectly. If most people use word X to mean Y, then Y is necessarily one of the meanings of X. Period.

That’s how dictionaries are written – from usage, not the other way around. But it takes time to compile and publish dictionaries, and editors tend to be conservative in case a given usage turns out to be ephemeral, so dictionaries may not be the best resource if you want to understand a word’s full range of meaning at the present time. Also, some dictionaries are more accurate than others. Dictionary.com is not a source I would allow my students to rely on.

And in case you haven’t groked it yet, I happen to be one of these so called “authorities” you want to defer to.

What gets my goat here is that you feel you have the right to call someone else an “uninformed jackass” for using a word in a different way from the way you prefer to use it, even though you and everyone else understands exactly what they mean when they use it, and even though a widely published and perfectly respectable unabridged dictionary notes that it’s perfectly fine to use it that way.

You think people who speak differently from you are lazy and willfully ignorant. Too lazy to consult you on how they should speak? Too lazy to ask you which particular dictionary they should use? Willfully ignorant of your particular dialect? Was Shakespeare lazy and ignorant? Was Swift? They were not overly concerned with linguistic dogma. I recall one critic, who generally liked Swift, taking him to task for using the phrase “rowing for all he was worth”. Vulgar stuff, that.

There are plenty of “books on language” where you’ll find people claiming to know what words “really mean” despite how people actually use them. To my mind, that’s just plain old fashioned elitism.

It’s easy to dig up crackpot arguments from certain widely published authors, like how “I ain’t got no money” is “illogical” because it means that “no money” is something you don’t have. However, no one has ever understood it to mean that in the real world, and agreement for negation is a feature of many languages, and (obviously) of certain dialects of English. That kind of argument stems from ignorance of (or disregard for) how the brain processes language and how English has developed and continues to evolve over time. Or it’s just outright snobbery against people who use that construction.

To those people, I would say, you better start saying “a friend of me” rather than “a friend of mine” because the latter is certainly illogical. :rolleyes:

I actually logged on to apologize for being so sharp earlier. I could have gotten my point across without the sarcasm and profanity. But when I’m in the wrong mood, this kind of thing can really set me off.

When I read the “uninformed jackass” bit, though, that tore it.

Do what you will, talk however you like, but pitting people who don’t believe in your narrow view of what’s correct – to hell with that.

44

I should’ve known not to read this thread in the first place.

First, I do want to apologize for my bad form, even if this is the Pit.

Seems every time someone complains about usage, I feel I have to run through the thread like a bull in a china shop, criticizing people for being intolerant of others while at the same time implicitly insisting that everyone else see things the way I do.

I’ve said all this stuff many times before, no need to repeat myself. I’m just being a jerk.

So I hereby recuse myself from all further “I hate it when people say” threads.

One of my New Year’s resolutions was to become a less critical, more compassionate person, and when I do things like this, I fail miserably at that.

Over and out.

45

Can I stand next to you? Maybe bow down at your language skills and old time values?

46

There’s glory for you!
But, the thing grating on my ears most recently is the failure to conjugate “to say.” I will never “says.” I most definitely did not “says” yesterday. And while he “says” right now, he didn’t “says” yesterday, either. And neither of us will “says” tomorrow.

47

The title bothered me, too. Almost as much as “Another redundant word redundancy thread” would have.

May I suggest “Another word misusage thread” the next time the OP feels compelled to strap on the grammar Nazi jackboots (with their oh-so-prissy pink tassels).

48

I could care less about this stuff. Irregardless, for the people who do and get all aggravated, well they deserve their just desserts.

49

As several people have already pointed out, there is a big difference between a word gradually shifting in meaning due to common usage and people lazily misspelling and misusing common and simple words such as moot/mute and loose/lose.

For example, nauseous vs. nauseATed, where nauseas does NOT actually mean "to feel nausea’ but means a substance which causes one to become nauseated, and nowadays, it’s just passed into common use to be “correct” (even though it isn’t) to say 'I feel nauseous, when you really mean you feel nauseated.

Can they still be understood? Sometimes, but sometimes not.

And I really had a good laugh at the frothing at the mouth impatient customer who was making a tennis reservation, and after he asked me why I was doing what I was doing, and I started to explain, he said “you’re just bantering now”. I had to bite my tongue to keep from laughing out loud and asking “I’m engaging in lighthearted or sarcastic wordplay? I do not think that word means what you think it means”.

Did I understand that what he meant to say was really Babbling, or perhaps rambling? Yes, but it’s still the verbal equivelant of him having soup on his tie, or not having showered.

The fact that the meanings of certain words can shift due to popular culture and use and that this is an ongoing process really has nothing to do with refusing to correctly use words that ALREADY have a meaning in place, and for which such a shift has not, or is not occurring.

50

You need to study the nature of language. May I suggest, as a starter, the excellent book Words and Rules? I mean, I’m no expert in the field, but it’s pretty damn informative, and after you’ve read it, you’ll probably bump this thread to apologize for your embarassing ignorance about the nature of language.

I invite linguists to recommend other books. As I understand it, the debate over whether words have inherent meaning is pretty well settled in favor of the negative, at this point; and folks who have an understanding of how language works tend to marvel at changes in meaning, delight in them, rather than shake their fists at those damned kids using words to mean new things.

These changes in meaning, they’re awesomely rockin.

Daniel

51

Haven’t you been paying attention? Approbation means exactly what anyone wants it to mean.

Woody, you’re going to lose this one but I admire you for fighting the good fight.

Bryan, I agree with you 99% of the time but I get tired of people being called grammar Nazis just because they are concerned about sloppy language. Yes, language evolves over time. Yes, the meanings of words shift. But up until recently, it was an honorable avocation to defend traditional meanings against useless corruptions and poor usage. There need to be checks and balances. Infer and imply are used interchangeably for goodness’ sake. Reticent and reluctant now mean the same thing. What we lose are shades of meaning that enrich the language.

Would you tell a child that it is OK to call a lamp a grapefruit, or would you be a grammar Nazi and tell him it is wrong? How about someone learning English as a second language?

Insisting on rules and consistent meanings makes English a stronger language. New meanings should come into being because they enrich the language, not because someone can’t be bothered to get it right,

I will close with a quote from one of the greatest writers of American English, Mark Twain.

“Yes, I know what you mean. I also know that is not what you said.”

52

I second this, as well as Steven Pinker’s other linguistics book The Language Instinct. It’s highly informative, but at the same time very accessible. In fact, Pinker slaps down that silly misconception about the word ‘disinterested’ in TLI. Since it’s relevant to the thread, I’ll paraphrase:

Disinterested has two possible constructions. The one which means what language mavens and busybodies insist upon, ‘without a stake in a matter, without bias’, comes from the construction [dis + interest] + ed. Disinterest by itself is less ambiguous than disinterested, and more clearly means lack of bias. Add on the ed adjectival suffix, and it becomes disinterested, or lacking bias.

However, the other construction is dis + [interest + ed]. Interested is the common adjective which means attentive. Dis is a common English prefix that acts as a negator (disinclined, disapproving, disjointed, etc.), and when applied to the word interested it becomes ‘without interest’.

You can argue whether or not the second derivation is more incorrect than the first, but to claim it is a result of ignorance is just high-handed elitism. It’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion, given that the first definition of disinterested is far less commonly used than the second definition. It’s perfectly reasonable to infer that disinterested means without interest.

Steven Pinker then goes on to note that when disinterested first came into usage, it did indeed mean the second definition. However, as I don’t have easy access to the OED, that’s a point I’m not going to push.

(On preview)
Contrapuntal, enrichment of the language is not precisely what’s considered when rules fall out of or come into usage, especially as I strongly suspect that’s a subjective criterion anyway. The primary criterion is ‘Does it impede communication?’ If it does, then it will not be used. If it doesn’t, then it will probably be used, although it may sometimes conflict with other dialects and languages.

It’s noticeable that people complain about the word disinterested having two meanings, but nobody starts a pit thread complaining that when someone offers to buy a pie, they don’t know whether that person meant pepperoni or pumpkin.

Dialects span not only regions, but societal circles. I’m going to go out on a limb and make the assertion that in legal and business circles, where deals and agreements are often formed, distinguishing between disinterested and uninterested is crucial. However, when you’re asking your buddies if they want to go to a bar, it doesn’t really matter whether they’re disinterested or uninterested, they’re still not going with you.

It all boils down to: Know your audience. Know whether or not they’ll chide you for not realizing the difference between infer or imply, or whether they’ll think you uptight for not calling people assholes every once in a while. There is no one English language; it’s a sea of different dialects, one to an individual. Groups of individuals share close dialects, but based on individual experiences their dialects even within the group may vary by a word or two. There is no one ‘correct’ language; there is only what is understandable.

53

[QUOTE=BayleDomon]

(On preview)

Just so I am clear on this, are you saying that there are in fact rules concerning language?

If someone asks me how my day was I can communicate with a grunt. Communication would not be impeded by that grunt. I ask more of a language. I expect nuance, clarity, enlightenment, education, information, a coming together of minds, and much much more.

Well see there you go. If they are disinterested, perhaps they could be persuaded. They have expressed neither interest or the lack of interest. Although most of my buddies would say just “yes” or “no”.
And on a related topic, why do people around here say “on preview” rather than “on review”? (No snarkiness intended).

54

Well, heck, if we can’t make wild hyperbolic statements about the arbitrarily pedantic, comedy as we know it will cease to exist.

And I was looking for an excuse to describe pink-tasseled jackboots.

55

Well dammit, upon review, I totally missed the pink tassels. They were a nice touch. And as for comedy, I’m all for it.

56

Yes, but not in the way you’re probably thinking. There is a rule that in order to created an adjectival form of a noun, you add the suffix ‘+ed’. This is a rule that explains what the language does. If the language shifted such that people started using ‘interesten’ instead of ‘interested’, the rule would then say that you would add the suffix ‘+en’. There is not necessarily any such rule of English that says ‘don’t split infinitives’. It’s like the difference between saying that a standard human body must have one head, two arms, and two legs, and saying a standard human body must be able to fit into a size 2 garment. By following the first rule, you ensure that you are speaking English. By following the second rule, you ensure that you are conforming to some aesthetic rule someone made up a long time ago.

Well, that’s nice that you ask more out of it. But it’s not necessary to be an effective communication tool. Language is not about sounding authoritative or poetic or enlightened or what have you; it’s about conveying information. If mathematicians could convey their latest theorem entirely in grunts, who’s to say they wouldn’t?

Now really. If you call up a friend and ask them to go to a bar, and they say they’re disinterested, are you going to press the issue, claiming they really said they have no bias one way or the other? You’re gonna be pretty lonely at the bar.

This actually raises an anecdotal side note, take it for what you will. I see this disinterest lament bandied about constantly, but I for one have never heard it used in regular speech. Any construction of ‘He’s disinterested’ or ‘I’m disinterested’ would not be used; instead it’d be ‘He’s not interested’ or ‘I’m not interested.’ Perhaps it’s just in my region or the people I hang around with, but from my perspective it sure doesn’t seem like a terrible erosion of the English language.

People say on preview because when they hit the Preview Post button, they may see a new post pop up which they want to address in the same post they were composing. It’s shorthand for ‘On previewing my post, I see…’ etc. If it were called the Review Post button, people would probably say ‘On review’.

I’m sure I’ll see this has already been answered on preview. :smiley:

57

[QUOTE=BayleDomon]

Goodness gracious. You presume to know what I think when we cannot even agree on what words mean.

The sense of this analogy eludes me. When in our distant past was it asserted that humans are size 2?

Dammit, I think you mean well and you probably know a lot more about this then I do, but surely you must understand that the more information you convey, the better you are at conveying information. A grunt might mean “a bad day,” a nuanced grunt might mean “a bad day with tigers,” a grunt and snarl might mean “tigers from hell.” Surely we should strive for more than the least common denominator.

Hey look. It’s your scenario. If my friend says he’s disinterested I’m going to ask him what he’s been smoking. Like I said, my friends would say either "yes’ or “no”. Have those words become interchangeable?

I have never noticed that. Thanks for the heads up. (Or feet down. You know what I mean.) :smiley:

58

I have met him, Pinker is a pussy. If I beat him into submission will it change the nature of language? You know there are some pretty bright people here, I’ll bet we can work it out.

59

I’m wondering if some of you folks need a translater to talk to small children.

“Ma ma, I want ba-dool.”

[translation]

“Mother, may I please have a bottle as I’m feeling a bit parched.”

:rolleyes: times infinity.

60

Only because I’ve seen these prescriptivist/descriptivist debates a hundred times before. I apologize for presuming, though.

Eh, it’s a tortured analogy. The point I’m trying to get across is that prescriptivist rules are not necessary for functional language. However, if you neglect to add a descriptivist rule (which is something native speakers of a language actually have a hell of a time managing), you’re not speaking the current form of the language.

Depends. Again, it’s all in what works. Do we lament the loss of the distinction between ‘thee’ and ‘thou’? I can’t say many do. That distinction fell out of usage because English gets along fine with using just the word ‘you’ in both subject and object positions.

The problem with these rants that lament the degradation of English is that they utterly ignore what’s happening on the other side of the fence. Okay, fine, let’s allow that the meaning shift of ‘disinterested’ is a catastrophic blow to the versatility of the English language.

What goes ignored are the additions to English. To a person, everyone who has been introduced to the word schadenfreude has embraced it as a new vocabulary word. I have yet to see a person say “I much prefer the phrase ‘delight in others’ misfortune’.” Schadenfreude is one word which encapsulates a feeling that heretofore required a full phrase to say. I’d call that an enrichment of the language, wouldn’t you?

This supports my contention. Who even says disinterested when they mean uninterested? I’m starting to think this is a created menace to language so pessimists would have a handy example for their regular rants.