Words that Don't Mean What You Think They Mean

[patientlee]

Fun, little reminder. Sorry. "Unique" isn't on the list.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-mean?s=mobile

 

[StrangeLife]

Those are both funny and true.



The growing problem of people using the word "literally" to emphasise a point has been addressed by Oatmeal as well...

http://adityaviyer.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/213428469810687897_dccos0wh_c.jpg?w=544

 

[Serafina1210]

Those are both funny and true.



The growing problem of people using the word "literally" to emphasise a point has been addressed by Oatmeal as well...

http://adityaviyer.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/213428469810687897_dccos0wh_c.jpg?w=544

"Literally" has been used to emphasize a point since I was very small--that makes it more or less contemporary with Shakespeare.

Folks, a language is the property of the people who use it. Words mean what people think they mean, not what Noah Webster thought they ought to mean. So if everybody thinks "infer" means the same as "imply," then it does.

 

[49greg]

Fun, little reminder. Sorry. "Unique" isn't on the list.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think-they-mean?s=mobile

I always wondered how something could be 'more' unique, or 'very' unique. OK, OK, I'll admit it, I used to not wonder, but my wife has a degree in English, she's the one that pointed it out to me.

 

[Privates1stClass]

Words that Don't Mean What You Think They Mean

"All-day sucker" to this crowd probably doesn't mean the same to everyone else.

 

[StrangeLife]

I always wondered how something could be 'more' unique, or 'very' unique.

Kinda related to this one...


"Never before had I felt more totally drained."


... which I encounter regularly in Lit-stories.

 

[Hypoxia]

Folks, a language is the property of the people who use it. Words mean what people think they mean, not what Noah Webster thought they ought to mean.

But if they don't agree on what words mean, they have no common language. If my north is your south and I give you directions, where will you end up?

 

[Serafina1210]

But if they don't agree on what words mean, they have no common language. If my north is your south and I give you directions, where will you end up?

They typically do agree, though not always with "authorities" like Strunk and White. Accepting the conventional wisdom about "infer" doesn't open us to linguistic anarchy.

 

[allamagione]

"Define irony."

"Irony. Uh... Irony. It's a noun. It's when something is... ironic. It's, uh... Well, I can't really define irony... but I know it when I see it!"

 

[oggbashan]

They typically do agree, though not always with "authorities" like Strunk and White. Accepting the conventional wisdom about "infer" doesn't open us to linguistic anarchy.

Some of my stories have implied, but not overt, sex.

Some comments demonstrate that some readers cannot infer the sex. For them it has to be explicit or else it doesn't happen.

And then further comments imply that the first commenters are too stupid to recognise implied sex...

 

[Serafina1210]

Some of my stories have implied, but not overt, sex.

Do you still need a condom with implied sex?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"Literally" has been used to emphasize a point since I was very small--that makes it more or less contemporary with Shakespeare.

Folks, a language is the property of the people who use it. Words mean what people think they mean, not what Noah Webster thought they ought to mean. So if everybody thinks "infer" means the same as "imply," then it does.

The problem with your theory is people are mongrelized halfwits.

 

[Serafina1210]

The problem with your theory is people are mongrelized halfwits.

It's not a problem with my theory, unless you're suggesting that the people who write usage books, grammar-cop websites and the like somehow are not halfwits while the rest of us are. Samuel Johnson understood very well how language worked, and knew how to live with it (unlike, say, Strunk and White):

"But it may be reasonably imagined, that what is so much in the power of men as language, will very often be capriciously conducted." (Plan of an English Dictionary, 1747)

 

[oggbashan]

Do you still need a condom with implied sex?

According to Naoko - Yes.

 

[PayDay]

irregardless: Non Standard Regardless

Usage: Irregardless is a form that many people mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style but that in fact has no legitimate antecedents in either standard or nonstandard forms of English.

Literally, irregardless is not a word other than because people use it.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Literally, irregardless is not a word other than because people use it.

Oh, Yes It Is! (A word, that is.)

If people use it, it might not be in the current dictionaries, but if it continues to be used, it will be in future dictionaries.

Words are created by usage. We may not approve, we may object, but language evolves through use.

 

[PayDay]

Oh, Yes It Is! (A word, that is.)

If people use it, it might not be in the current dictionaries, but if it continues to be used, it will be in future dictionaries.

Words are created by usage. We may not approve, we may object, but language evolves through use.

Yup. Basically. Excellent clarity point: It's like 'ain't' : in the dictionary due to usage.

My American Heritage(4th ed) Dictionary defines irregardless as informal/nonstandard usage of regardless.

Time makes fools of us all

 

[oggbashan]

...

Time makes fools of us all

That particularly applies to learning a foreign language.

I started learning French at age 8. I started again (different school) at age 11, and finished my formal studies age 18 in Australia.

My teachers taught me the French they had studied at University 10, 20 or 30 years earlier. My formal French studies ended over 50 years ago.

So what French do I speak when I go to France?

It would have been the French of the 1920s or 1930s.

But one of my interests is the French Revolution. I have a collection of books and newspapers published (in French) at the time of the Revolution. That influences my French and I tend, not to speak the early 20th Century French I was taught, but late 18th Century French.

I am impossibly formal and antiquated.

To make it worse, when speaking French I still have the Australian accent I have lost when speaking English.

 

[Handley_Page]

"Literally" has been used to emphasize a point since I was very small--that makes it more or less contemporary with Shakespeare.

Folks, a language is the property of the people who use it. Words mean what people think they mean, not what Noah Webster thought they ought to mean. So if everybody thinks "infer" means the same as "imply," then it does.

Wrong.
The rule only applies IFF (If and only If) this 'new' definition is used in common speech by everyone for a decent period of time.
Just because a set of half-wits decide to misuse our language, it does not make it right.

But if they don't agree on what words mean, they have no common language. If my north is your south and I give you directions, where will you end up?

Thoroughly confused.

 

[Serafina1210]

Wrong.
The rule only applies IFF (If and only If) this 'new' definition is used in common speech by everyone for a decent period of time.
Just because a set of half-wits decide to misuse our language, it does not make it right.

Who decides how long? Who decides who gets a say? A language is made and constantly remade by the community that uses it. Halfwits, nincompoops, even professors get a say, and a sufficient number of people agreeing will make today's error into tomorrow's standard usage.

 

[patientlee]

According to Naoko - Yes.

She is the Goddess of the Rubber, isn't she?

 

[Bramblethorn]

"Literally" has been used to emphasize a point since I was very small--that makes it more or less contemporary with Shakespeare.

Folks, a language is the property of the people who use it. Words mean what people think they mean, not what Noah Webster thought they ought to mean. So if everybody thinks "infer" means the same as "imply," then it does.

Speaking of Shakespeare, he broke rule #3: "There, at your meetest vantage of the time,
Infer the bastardy of Edward’s children."

 

[49greg]

Oh, Yes It Is! (A word, that is.)

If people use it, it might not be in the current dictionaries, but if it continues to be used, it will be in future dictionaries.

Words are created by usage. We may not approve, we may object, but language evolves through use.

That's right. It's a living language, and it's subject to change. I was told once by a teacher that was the reason scientific names of plants and animals etc are in Latin, it's dead and doesn't change.

On the other hand, there is one word that should never be in dictionaries. No matter who uses it or how often it's used. My second grade teacher, Mrs Fletcher wrote "AIN'T" on a piece of paper, tore it up and threw it away, so that word no longer exists and can't be used.

Really. She did. So don't use it, you might cause a rift in the space time continuum that only Dr. Who could fix.

Interestingly Mrs Fletcher's husband was the Dr. who delivered me.

 

[49greg]

She is the Goddess of the Rubber, isn't she?

And she has worshipers. I got dinged recently in a comment, and presumably in voting, because I didn't mention the use of condoms.

 

[oggbashan]

And she has worshipers. I got dinged recently in a comment, and presumably in voting, because I didn't mention the use of condoms.

Naoko reviews stories on her Feminist Erotica Blog. She only reviews stories that feature 'safe' sex because of the audience for that blog.

I don't think she requires safe sex in every story, just safe sex in stories she can review.

My elephants in Just So Elephant were over 18 but didn't use Jumbo size condoms, so she couldn't review it.