First off, I agree that it’s the current state of the English language that “disinterested” means “uninterested” and “begs the question” means “suggests the question” and we can’t do anything about it. Still, these usages cause me more pain than the fact that “terrific”, “awesome”, “fantastic”, “sensational” and “tremendous” have pretty much lost their own very specific meanings and now all mean more or less “really good”. Why do “disinterested” and “beg the question” hurt me so much?
The defence for using these is usually along the lines of “languages are created from the ground up by unpretentious, ordinary people like me not from the top down by pedantic throw-backs like you.” My counterargument is: how did someone so unpretentious and ordinary as you come to use the word “disinterested” when “uninterested” is a word you’re perfectly familiar with? How did you come to use the expression “begs the question” when “raises the question” would be more natural to anyone who’s never heard a logician speak?
May I suggest that the only reason you use these words is that you’ve heard smart people using them and you thought you would sound smart if you did too - never suspecting that you had no idea what they meant. No doubt if the planes stop coming with their precious cargo, you’ll build runways and bamboo control towers to entice them back. Unfortunately, there’s more to a control tower than its outward form and there’s more to “disinterest” than some sort of negation of “interest”.
On this basis, I humbly ask that you refrain from calling me pretentious when I stick up for these words. Whew! Glad I got that off my chest - carry on.
On preview, I see that this rant is in reply to Nzinga, Seated
Even more annoying is the fact that “momentarily” has been repurposed for applications where “presently” should be used, when in fact it really means for “for a short period of time”.
So if someone is announcing that the train is going to be arriving at the station momentarily, they think they’re telling everyone that they’ll be getting to the station in a couple of minutes, when in reality they’re telling passengers that they’d better hustle off the train ASAP because the train isn’t stopping for long.
Personally, I’m going to begin substituting “anon” for “in just a minute”.
No there’s not. There’s nothing more to a word that the meaning that the speaker and the listener (or the writer and the reader) together assign to it. Words are letters, or phonemes, not magical talismans of power. No one knew what “grok” meant until Heinlein put those letters together. He proposed a meaning, and it seemed to serve a useful purpose in our communication and so was spread. Therefore, it has meaning because he and we together agree on what it means.
Well, I guess that depends on what definition of “pretentious” we’re using, doesn’t it? If it means “acting in a way which you aren’t really” then no, you’re not being pretentious. If it means “Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.*” then it’s absolutely that. You’ve glommed onto one of the several meanings that “disinterested” has held, and for no good reason decided that the middle one (temporally) is the “real” one and denigrate the intelligence of those who use it more logically and currently.
It’s like the “never end a sentence with a preposition” rule; a temporary fad in language gets carried over by a few pedants as if it’s God’s Absolute Rule.
I think the change of meaning of “begs the question” is perfectly logical and even good. It’s more in line with what we today mean by “beg” - that is, “asks for” or “pleads to get”. It’s not that we aren’t smart enough to understand what it used to mean, it’s that the words are more useful to us read nearly literally than as an archaic idiom.
So why, then, do I hang on to “ambivalent” and defend it’s “real” meaning at every opportunity? Because there’s not another word that’s a good synonym. It takes half a dozen clumsy words to explain what I mean if I can’t use ambivalent. When someone comes up with a good alternate, I’ll use it, and cheerfully let ambivalent become a synonym for “uncaring”, or even “disinterested”.
Disinterested in the other use is perfectly replaceable with “unbiased”, if you need it.
*thefreedictionary.com
Not necessarily a word, but I’ve heard people use the term DEFCON 5 to indicate a situation they’re in that’s rife with hostility or tension. They really mean DEFCON 1. The higher the number, the more peaceful the situation.
Also, I’ve heard some people say imminent or imminently to mean “immediately”.
“Exponential”, and especially “exponentially”. Those words have a specific meaning in mathematics, computer science, physics, etc. Unsurprisingly, that meaning has to do with exponential functions. 90% of the time when laypeople use it, it is nonsensical, the rest of the time it is merely wrong. No, thing A is not “exponentially bigger” than thing B. That doesn’t make any goddamn sense.
I think that’s up for interpretation. DEFCON 5 is where it “started” as such, there’s more tension there than the no-holds-barred-we’re-all-fucked nuclear war that is DEFCON 1. Now when people are saying a situation is overly-hostile I agree with you, but I think 5 is apt for describing tension.
But if the speaker/uses it and it’s still ambiguous, I will end up applying the “wrong” meaning. Later when it’s clarified, I have to do a mental uurrrr and turn in that direction. “I thought you said you were disinterested!”
The point that’s being missed here is it’s not the change in the meanings of “disinterested” and “begs the question” that I object to. It’s the reason they changed and opposition of the true reasons with the stated defence.
“Beg the question” is not archaic - it’s jargon. If you’d* never heard some thick glasses wearing professor use it in its technical sense you’d never have used it yourself. You’d say “raises the question” or more likely “makes me wonder why”. “Begs the question” sounds stilted and that is, in fact, why people say it. If you don’t know whagt it means, just talk naturally using workds you do know.
I hope it’s clear that this is the royal “you”. I’m not accusing you specifically WhyNot.
I think this the case, and we should keep in mind the difference between a word that defies its origins through centuries of use (e.g., terrific), and words that people use in affectation.
The problem is that through affectation, over only a few decades, many of these words in this thread have gotten into the dictionary under the misguided understanding–probably because a large number of people use them this way and there’s no confusion.
So if someone says, “It was a terrific baseball game,” there’s no reason to think the other person will think it was a game full of terror. But if someone says, “I was bemused by their funny little prank,” obviously you are using a word by affectation. You know the word “amuse,” (which perfectly fits the situation) but you want to sound smarter.
oxymoron is an example of this, which started out with people simply misusing it, and now it seems to be used simply out of affectation. People use it to mean contradiction. But the word oxymoron evolved out of the study of poetics to express a specific kind of contradiction: that is to say, an objectively semantic impossibility. Ex: “The cold heat of the summer day made them into enemies.” That’s a true oxymoron, because heat isn’t heat if it’s cold.
The hackneyed internet joke that “military intelligence” is an “oxymoron” is not only affectation but unnecessary. Just use the word “contradiction,” because that expresses a subjective view that the military doesn’t act intelligently. In fact, it isn’t semantically impossible to have an intelligent military. It’s just your opinion (or lame attempt at a joke) to say that it is impossible.
The result is that oxymoron gets into the dictionary as meaning “contradiction,” but loses the finesse of its original use.
I say, if you want to say “contradiction,” then just say it.
I think what you mean is the impersonal you. I’ve seen this phrase used on this board various times, and the only thing I can think is that it’s a confusion with the royal we, which actually is a real term.
I opened this thread to post about this very word. Not to complain that people misunderstand its meaning, but to admit that I hate this word precisely because it doesn’t sound at all like something amusing or whimsical, but does sound dull and boring. I recognize that it has its origins way back in the 17th century, but it’s one of those words that I’d love to vote to change the meaning of, to what it actually sounds like it should mean.
