Memo to all writers and copy editors out there in the ether:
For about the 100th time I read an article which misused the word “prodigal” to describe someone who had wandered away from his roots.
God damn it, “prodigal” means “spendthrift” or “recklessly extravagant.” It does not mean “wandering” or “straying” or “wayward.”
Now, I suppose it’s easy to understand the mistake, since most people first encountered the word by way of the [parable of the prodigal son](http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Luke 15:11-32). The problem is that the phrase “prodigal son,” when used to describe that story, refers to the son’s squandering of the family wealth. It does not refer to the fact that he wandered away and abandoned his family.
So please think of my blood pressure, and try to keep this straight.
And to anyone who plans to come into this thread to tell me that language is always evolving, and that maybe the meaning of the word is changing through popular usage, well maybe so, but you know what? Fuck right off.
I think it’s ok in the context of the phrase “Prodigal Son” (as in, “look, the Prodigal Son has returned!”) but to use prodigal all by itself as a synonym for wandering is unnacceptable.
“Prodigal Son” just rolls off the tongue easier than “Wandering Son”
While we’re at it, ‘immaculate conception’ does not refer to Mary’s virginity, nor does the doctrine of ‘papal infallability’ mean that the pope is always right.
Why was the steward who cooked his boss’s books in favor of the boss’s debtors when he knew he was about to get canned an exemplary character who Jesus thought we should imitate?
And, seeing as you’re up, what about alternate for alternative, ignorant for repulsive, while for although, the pompous precondition for condition (the unpreconditional surrender) and if for whether?
How the hell did “spendthrift” come to mean “big spender” anyway? I guess “thrift” at one point meant wealth. But still. It doesn’t look like it should mean that. I vote for elimination.
Drinking the Kool-Aid isn’t what you do to get converted.
It’s what you do after you’re ALREADY converted, and it kills you.
Anyone who says, “If you drank the Kool-Aid and now believe this,” listen up…
*
You do not believe ANYTHING after drinking the Kool-Aid. Because you are dead. You have ceased to be. You are an ex-cult-member.*
You people have been reading George Carlin’s Brain Droppings haven’t you?
If you haven’t, you should. He has all these in there.
One that isn’t (but which is common, and surprised me the fuirst time I heard it) is that “Livid” doesn’t mean “red in the face”. It means “purple in the face”, or, more literally, “lead colored”.
It’s enough to make you turn livid.
I heard a sermon within the last two months that explained this quite satisfactorily. But I don’t remenber the explanation.
(I think it had to do with the fact that the bookkeeper shrewdly got the debtors to pay at least a percentage of their debts to his boss, instead of defaulting completely. But I don’t recall the specfic lesson).
“Incredulous” is not a spiffier way of saying “incredible”. I used to think only Bertie Wooster made this error in P. G. Wodehouse novels, but I’ve seen it elsewhere as well.
And—the one that really makes me livid (thanks, Cal)—it’s “rein in”, as in “restrain by pulling on the reins”, not “reign in”.
“Nauseous” means “nauseating”, not “nauseated”. (I refrain from tweaking people about this when they say “Oh, I’m a little nauseous”, though, because it’s not nice to make fun of sick people.)
“Kudos” is not plural.
You mean “whom Jesus thought we should emulate”.
Actually, I really don’t mind the use of “who” for “whom”; if people just want to get rid of “whom” altogether and use “who” for both objective and subjective cases, that’s okay, and de facto accepted. But it totally fries my cookies to read “whom” incorrectly used for “who”. People who use “who” for “whom” are being colloquial; people who use “whom” for “who” are trying to be grammatically proper and getting it totally wrong.
“Bob, whom I thought was the best player we had…” No, you idiot, the relative pronoun has to agree with its function in the relative clause, like this: “Bob, who was the best player we had…” Sticking the qualifying phrase “I thought” into the clause doesn’t change the pronoun or its function.
What’s mixing you up is the correct use of “whom” where it does perform an objective-case function in the relative clause: “Bob, whom I thought a complete loser…” → “I thought him a loser”. “Bob, whom I tried to kill…” → “I tried to kill him”. Stop confusing these with the subjective-case clauses where “who” is correct.
It’s Qur’an, not Qu’ran. The apostrophe isn’t just for decoration. I see this wrong all the freaking time. And not just on, say, the SDMB - I’ve seen it in newspapers and magazines and books. Carl Sagan got it wrong about a hundred times in The Demon-Haunted World. Gah!
If you can’t figure out where the apostrophe goes, just spell it Koran.
