That’s because it has evolved to mean that relatively recently. It’s an example of the evolution of language, of which many of the words listed in this thread are in the process, even as we speak.
Most of the words we are saying here are used wrongly, will, inevitably, be used that way ever after in the space of a couple of generations.
Oh, bull. As I’ve said before, and will say again, language is about communication. Everybody will know what the people in guizot’s example did whether they use ‘take’ or ‘bring’.
Of course people know what it means. But he was suggesting that it’s somehow more correct in his exampled usage, and it’s not. It’s a colloquiallism that is not unclear in its meaning, but it’s not grammatically correct.
Things that agree don’t jive. They jibe.
That’s jive, homes.
Bravo! Exactly why “disinterested” is a useful word in the (I’m going to say) correct usage, and a sad loss in the newer one. But I find in law that the correct usage is still predominant.
One of my favorites in this area is not heard often:
meretricious
People think it has something to do with merit, but in fact the opposite; it means flashy but of no real value, and comes from the Latin word “meretrix” which means prostitute.
Roddy
I never said anything about more correct nor anything about grammar. It’s not about correctness or grammar (or colloquialisms); it’s a question of pragmatics.
There’s a lot more to language than what your ninth-grade English teacher taught you.
What do people mistake this word to mean?
It is a word that means something different from what some people seem to think it means. I have no idea what they think it means, but based on reactions I’ve seen to its correct usage, obviously not “beauty.” :rolleyes:
If he’s thinking of the same sort of usages I’ve heard, then not really – though it’s a good guess that’s what it’s evolved from.
I hear things like “Did you see Britney shaved her hair? That’s just so random!”
Some people think it means ‘where’ (Imagining that Juliet is looking for Romeo when she says ‘wherefore art thou?’)
And it means “why”, as in “all the rotten luck that my new-found love is the son of my dad’s enemy- why’d you have to be Romeo. (Pouts).”
So what you’re saying is, although you can tell Grandma, “We brought you some flowers,” you can’t have previously said, “Let’s bring Grandma some flowers”?
Would that mean that if you are a teacher, and you tell a child, “Stop playing with that or I’ll take it from you,” if you then go to the principal with it, you must then say, “I *brought *this from Billy,” since it’s now with you in a different place than where it was?
Nobody says that. The distinction between “bring” and “take” doesn’t just indicate direction relative to the speaker; it indicates direction relative to the point of interest you are trying to indicate. You bring to, you take from - whatever point of interest. In this case, you are bringing flowers to Grandma; the interest is the flowers’ direction relative to Grandma, not to you, since the flowers are for her.
Until I read this thread, I didn’t know there was a distinction between ‘bring’ and ‘take’. And quite frankly, I don’t think it’s a useful one.
Are you a native Spanish speaker, Picunurse? Because the distinction you make IS correct for Spanish. In Spanish you use “traer” (usually translated as “bring”) for carrying something to where the speaker is (or will be) at the moment of the action, not at the moment of the utterance, while you use “llevar” (usually translated as “take”) otherwise. In English, the important spatial concept is where the speaker is when he/she is talking.
Same with “go” and “come” That’s why, in Spanish, if you are on the phone with someone and you want to tell them that you are coming, you say “Voy” (I “go”) rather than “Vengo” (I “come”).
Sorry for the hijack.
I’ll nominate akimbo. As in “arms akimbo.”
It’s doesn’t mean that your arms are flying about…you’ve got your hands on your waist, elbows out.
A note in the American Heritage Dictionary supports your position:
I also consulted by Canadian Oxford, which has no explanatory note but has enough definitions for “bring” that its use in such a context can’t really be challenged. Webster’s Revised Unabridged is even more permissive than either the Oxford or AHD.
Oops – in my first paragraph, I got it backwards – the distinction between English and Spanish should be the other way around. My example in the second paragraph is correct.
Flout, when you mean flaunt.
Flaunt, when you mean flout.
And all the others on this list.
::clap clap clap:: Thank you! That expressed very well my problem with lissener’s post. (I.e. why I felt he was missing the point.)
Someone mentioned “ambivalent” up-thread and I want to say that I too dislike seeing or hearing it used as a direct synonym for not caring about the subject. However, I feel I must disagree slightly with them when they said that a person who is ambivalent cares very much about the subject. I’ve always thought of ambivalent as meaning “of two minds, having conflicting emotions about something”. In other words, while a person who is ambivalent may very well care strongly about something, they may just have weak emotions in conflict. I may be mistaken about this, but I think not.