We all know about the continual misuse of ‘literally’. Usually employed in a verbal volley by the likes of Jamie Redknapp, the word has shifted meaning; indeed, young Jamie may well end up being responsible for the death of the word ‘figuratively’ (I’m with Frasier Crane on this one).
What other words are changing their meaning? My nominations are ‘allude’ and ‘obsessed’.
‘Allude’ is traditionally defined as ‘suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at’. Not any more. Again, it’s sportsmen doing the damage. A typical podcast will often flow along these lines:
FLINTOFF: “England football team were rubbish at the last tournament. Rubbish. They couldn’t pass, shoot or tackle. Pathetic.”
SAVAGE: “Yeah, as Fred’s just alluded to…”
No, Robbie. He wasn’t alluding – he was explicitly mentioning.
My second choice, ‘obsessed’, is traditionally defined as ‘preoccupy or fill the mind of (someone) continually and to a troubling extent’. I’m not sure it’s used in this way now. Here are some uses I’ve heard recently:
“I’m obsessed with Game of Thrones!”
“I’m literally obsessed with Christmas films.”
I know both of the people who are responsible for the quotes above. They actually mean, “I quite like Game of Thrones/Christmas films.”
Over to you. What other words are changing meaning?
Football pundits making a mess of the English language?
I’m literally devastated.
Refute seems to have become a synonym for ‘deny’ rather than ‘disprove’, and noisome an alternative to ‘noisy’ rather than ‘foul smelling’. Words will change meaning over time but the transition period can be painful.
Has there been a change in the meaning of “refute”? Part of the definition has always been “to deny”, hasn’t it?
Well part of proving something wrong is denying it, but I would say that ‘I refute those allegations’ without further evidence to disprove them is not refuting them at all.
I seem to recall Stephen Fry correcting someone on QI: from ‘refute’ to ‘repudiate’.
God, what a tit.
He was excellent in Twin Peaks.
Had a quick look at the OED – “refute” includes “to deny”, and has done since the second half of the 20th century.
Yes, obviously it includes “deny” as an implicit early stage but it doesn’t mean “deny.” The same way “arrive” includes “travel” as implicit, but it doesn’t mean the same thing. Just as you can travel but fail to arrive, you can deny but fail to refute.
Archie, I know you own about eight dictionaries, of varying size and weight, but mine literally includes “deny” as part of the actual definition of “refute”.
Not going to die in a ditch over it (particularly as this is far more your bag than mine), but I think anyone using “refute” to mean “deny” is on pretty safe ground.
Here’s an online link, if it helps:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/refute
“1.2 Deny or contradict (a statement or accusation)
‘a spokesman totally refuted the allegation of bias’”
“The core meaning of refute is ‘prove a statement or theory to be wrong’, as in attempts to refute Einstein’s theory. In the second half of the 20th century a more general sense developed, meaning simply ‘deny’, as in I absolutely refute the charges made against me. Traditionalists object to this newer use as an unacceptable degradation of the language, but it is widely encountered.”
Obviously, OOAA.
It’s widely encountered, indeed. It’s also roundly wrong.
What pisses me off about descriptive rather than prescriptive dictionaries is how they arbitrarily accept (although they’d bleat that it’s not their place to accept or reject, but merely to “report”) some wonky usages but draw the line at others, like “would of”. Why? “Would of” is found all over the place these days. Hell, it’s probably now the most frequent form in informal writing by the population as a whole, and Facebook wouldn’t be Facebook without it.
What is even worse are proscriptive dictionaries.
Surely it can’t only be me that thinks if anyone ever writes a sentence including the phrase “would of” or “should of” (except as above) they should be hung, drawn and quartered?
Maybe it is just me…
No, it isn’t.
It could of been worse.
No it isn’t – I’m aware that language changes all the time but the “of” thing is just wrong and should not be encouraged.
My thought, not that it’s worth very much, is that refute means deny in the sense of I deny my children ice cream for breakfast. The synonymism, for me, is dragged in the direction of refute rather than towards deny.
Refute that!
Ah, but that’s withhold-deny rather than dispute-deny. And two denies don’t make a refute. Or something.
So, there are two distinct meanings of the word?
Somebody should tell The Ciash.
I cleave to your opinion(s)
You bastard!
No. The three stages of poo-pooing are:
(1) deny (say something isn’t so);
(2) rebut (explain why you claim it isn’t so);
(3) refute (present evidence to prove, once and for all, it isn’t so).
I do love a good poo-poo, or else putting the kibosh on someone’s duff gen.
Jesus. You don’t even take your trousers down?!
“poo-poo” also means – as any West Wing Weekly fule kno – “touch wood” in Yiddish-derived American English.
Whereas in American English “touch wood” is probably what you have to do to get onto a show like The West Wing.
Oho!
and unfortunately “touch cloth,” occasionally.
People possibly feel the need to use obsessed since “passionate” (and its variants) has been overused to the point of meaninglessness, and a new word is required to fill its place.
Even “passionate ” is over the top, when it’s usually referring to such behaviours as chin-stroking and humourless alphabetising… rather than shouting, panting, throbbing, involuntary ululations… er… oh I’m terribly sorry.
‘Don’t recognise’.
As in, ‘I don’t recognise those figures’. Means ‘I’m not going to answer the question, as you have me bang to rights on those figures, guvnor’.
‘Clear’ – or even better – ‘Very clear’.
May’s current catchphrase. ‘I have been clear that x will happen’. Nope, you haven’t, missis.
Re the OP – I think Savage was making a joke by using that word wasn’t he?
I’ve said it before but… one thing that scares me about the future is the possibility that we may be approaching an event horizon where Robbie Savage has finally tried out every stupid hairstyle that has ever existed. Then where will we be??
Robbie Savage often resembles Max Head-head-head-room.
I think you’re very kind, but you’re possibly giving young Savage a bit too much credit! I listened to all 15 episodes of that podcast, and Savage used ‘alluded’ to follow on from any point anyone else made. He clearly thinks ‘allude’ means ‘mention’.
@hamlet fair enough.
Any credit given – or indeed attention paid – to Robbie Savage is too much.
Savage isn’t the only culprit, I think I hear it on every sport discussion show.
The prime example is ‘hopefully’, which once meant ‘with hope’, as in ‘to travel hopefully is better than to arrive’, but has now become a synonym for ‘I hope that…’. It still makes me wince, throwback that I am, but I know there’s no going back. When I’m editing my colleagues’ deathless prose, though, I occasionally change it because I can.
Hopefully they forgive you for it, Mike 😉
If they ever noticed they might…
“Litigate” now seems to mean no more than “discuss in some depth”.
“Mitigate” means “discuss James Thurber’s work in some depth”.
We have these threads all the time (with the inevitable moaning), and I still feel like I don’t really understand them.
Language isn’t static, it’s negotiated. The meanings of words change all the time, and every single person on here will regularly use words that don’t mean what they originally did. To give but a few examples; “nice” used to mean “silly”, “awful” used to denote something awe inspiring, and “naughty” meant to have nothing. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of others.
Nobody’s assuming that. The examples you cite happened long before any of use were around to care about them (or not, as the case may be). Of course language changes, but it’s unsettling to be aware of the process while it’s happening. That’s all. No arrogance involved,
Why does it need to be unsettling? Isn’t there an alternative view that it adds to the gaiety of nations? Change doesn’t always have to be scary.
Personally, I quite enjoy watching language morph and adapt. To take Archie’s example of “litigate” above, when someone says to me we shouldn’t “relitigate the referendum” I understand precisely what they mean, and feel the use of the term ads a certain character and mise-en-scene that would be lost if we were to simply say that we shouldn’t “repeat the arguments of the referendum”, or similar.
I don’t know why it needs to be unsettling, it just is. Possibly because I’m roughly twice your age, IIRC, and have turned into my dad. Like Archie, I have spent a large chunk of my career helping writers to say what they mean (or think they mean) as effectively as possible, which has too often meant listening to people with a tin ear for language tell me that because English is an evolving language they can mangle their mother tongue as much as they like. (This is not a dig at you, by the way.) It goes with the job, I’m afraid, and can lead to a certain inflexibility when words no longer mean what they used to mean.
“Possibly because I’m roughly twice your age, IIRC, and have turned into my dad.”
Laughed out loud at this. Well played, Mike!
I do get where you’re coming from. For what it’s worth, I probably have a similar reaction to people who communicate almost exclusively in emoji and gifs.
Well editing is an interesting case, because it entails making judgement calls in the context of your publication and its readership. Here in SA we have tabloids that use extremes of both dialect and slang. At the other end of the continuum would be the editors of the more prestigious academic journals. But there is always some judgement to be made, rather than just a mechanical application of rules. Sometimes it also depends on the subject matter, like whether it is serious or not.
Having said the above, I as an editor would never ever allow ‘must of’, unless it was being used satirically, but in some contexts I would certainly allow ‘awesome’, ‘insane’ or ‘cool’.
I always insist on ‘musta could shoulda’ myself.
You’re right about using judgement (or judgment, possibly…), but the point about rules (winky face, smiley face, etc) is that applying them makes an editor’s job easier. Oops.
Exactly. Even when battles are probably inevitably losing ones, it doesn’t mean they’re not worth fighting. Right, Remainers?
When nuance is lost, the language is dumbed down. Another example: the disappearing difference between “uninterested” and “disinterested”. Isn’t it useful to have a single word that means “not have a dog in this fight” rather than “not give a damn about this fight”?
Nuance isn’t lost, it’s simply transferred. The English language has been changing in this fashion for centuries, and yet I is still able to right good sum uv the tyme.
The problem, though, is that while change is still incomplete, what should an editor give precedence to: a new usage or the conventional one still applied by some (even if increasingly few) folks? For instance, if I was editing and saw “I’m disinterested in my wife’s finances”, I’d query whether the writer meant “she can dip into our savings however she likes” or “we have a separate-assets arrangement” – because for some readers it would mean one thing and for others the other. Just letting it ride would be doing a disservice to one of the groups.
I think that is where pedantry comes in useful – where there is ambiguity in use of language, forensically challenging the user, ideally by gently proffering differences of meaning and suggesting that they select the most apposite phrase.
I think you mean “gently elucidating differences of meaning”.
Maybe I do. Half the time I have no idea what I mean, I wish I knew which half.
As an editor, you’re going to want to ensure that words are used correctly. That’s presumably a big part of what the job entails.
But that’s just one use case for language. It’s quite possible to have situations where language is used with complete accuracy and rigorous adherence to definition (law is another, for what it’s worth), and others where it ain’t. I don’t use the term “awesome bodacity to the max” in contracts, but it’s virtually all that crosses my lips these days when I’m with friends.
I’d imagine most of the variations in language use emerge from conversation/pop culture, rather than journalism, which is as it should be.
Miss! Miss! He said “use case”, can I thump him?
With those stubby little arms? Doubtful.
Damn your eyes Valparaiso, disinterested was going to be my word of choice.
Thankfully there is another.
“Damn your eyes Valparaiso,” said the King of Spain.
Comma?
After eyes, but, possibly, after King, albeit to cleave the meaning and suggest a disinterest of geography.
No, mine’s a Bedford Rascal.
A soft-top Bedford R’scal, I trust.
Just call me Fat Harry White.
Just got it, very droll.
It’s a fair point, Bingo, and perhaps I should’ve been more explicit in the OP: I’m not judging or drawing a moral conclusion. It’s just an observation that some words are changing meaning – and some are becoming meaningless. ‘Devastated’ and ‘awesome’ have entered everyday usage as synonyms for ‘disappointed’ and ‘pretty good’. But if you’re ‘devastated’ to miss a friend’s birthday party, where do you go to verbally to express feelings about the death of a child or a village fire? That’s not meant to sound disapproving – it’s just a question.
Part of the shift in a word’s meaning relies on it being used, for a period, incorrectly. Words exist to facilitate communication, and the period of transition is interesting.
Dave Gorman did a good section on this in Modern Life is Goodish. The phrase ‘bull in a china shop’ is referred to, by many people, as ‘bowl in a china shop’. A ‘dog-eat-dog world’ is often called a ‘doggy dog world’. Amusing as it seems – and Dave makes the point – In thirty years, these malapropisms may well have superseded their origins. There was a time when, as Kingsley Amis pointed out, ‘fortuitous’ simply meant ‘by chance’. The fact that it sounds like ‘fortunate’ enabled a change over time.
Words are fascinating (or are they just ‘interesting’?) , and their usage and change are often a delight to behold.
Sorry, Hamlet. I realised after I wrote the comment that it came across as a bit disapproving of your premise, and you’re right that the OP simply calls for observations of words that are changing, without any condemnation involved.
I’m just conscious of how these things normally turn out on here, so I was sort of pre-empting a little, and in doing so probably provoking exactly the line of argument I was aiming to decry. On which note, “decry” used to mean “to cry ten times”. Fascinating.
No apologies needed, Bingo: I should have been clearer in the OP.
For the record, I always thought Robbie Savage was a complete twonk, but he’s excellent on the Flintoff, Savage and the Ping Pong guy podcast. When he talked about going to visit his dying dad every day, it was very moving.
Given your moniker, you could have riposted thus:
“Words, words, words!”
That was the original title of my post, Moose, but I thought it a wee bit esoteric (esoteric meaning ‘a bit pleased with myself’).
“Insane” used to mean the full dressed-as-Napoleon, swivel-eyed bark like a dog madness – but now:
“These peas are insane”
“The traffic was insane”
Robbie Savage’s ponytail used to look amazing. What it looks like now is, like, totally insane. (click).
That’s not the meaning of the word changing, it’s just slang used by people with small vocabularies or small imaginations.
“Like” instead of a silent comma, or a pause for breath.
“Gay” meaning happy, as in Larry Grayson’s “What a gay day”. Um…
Mr B bought this record during the summer at a car boot. I suppose the word “gay” here falls somewhere between the old and new meanings: https://www.discogs.com/Paddy-Roberts-Songs-For-Gay-Dogs/release/2825171
How queer!
Lots of these examples are just hyperbole; they don’t actually replace the original meaning, although they may come to do so in time. “Awesome’ is perhaps an example where the original meaning is slowly being lost. Possibly.
But take the example of ‘great’. It is often used simply as hyperbolic approval, but the other more literal meanings like ‘very big’ still have some currency.
But I agree most changes happen through the usage on the part of the less literate amongst us, or else those who merely want to be a bit funky in their speech. Either way there’s no stopping it.
Who wants their speech smelling of sex?! 😃
That’s a very specific and archaic meaning of funky. Pedant!
*bows*
thangyew!
I now realise I am not obsessed with Backgammon – I merely like it a lot.
I will however continue to hoover as before.
I, too, was going to dive in two-footed at those pesky footballers, but this thread has made me wary, so I checked first and – whaddayaknow – one of my own peeves, which is the term “statuesque defending” (i.e. standing immobile like what statues do) is consistent with the acceptable secondary definition of the adjective (and can even be used to describe rigidity of thought, apparently).
That’s me told.
Also, this:
If we’re doing clips (and @chiz isn’t looking) I think somebody mentioned ‘awesome’ upthread:
I love this sketch
I personally feel all written and spoken communication should begin with “Hwæt!”
Standards have slipped lamentably since the good old days.
Is ‘different than’ wrong? It sounds wrong but it’s SO common I wonder if it’s just me.
Re: ‘different than’
I believe it was originally standard in North American usage but non-standard in British usage.
In other words, it’s wrong.
It’s idiomatically “wrong” in British English, but makes perfect grammatical sense.
Surely it’s “wrong” because ‘than’ suggests some sort of quantitative/qualitative comparison, such as ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’? Different, if anything suggests distance/separation. Hence ‘from’.
Grammatical sense? Well, I suppose if an adjective followed by a preposition/conjunction is grammatical regardless of the choice of words.
You can say “something other than”. “Other” in that context means “different”. If it were “wrong” to say “different than”, “other than” would also be wrong.
Many international speakers say “how does it look like”, which annoys me a tiny bit as an ex-TEFL teacher, because I know it as either “what does it look like” or “how does it look”. Living in Germany, it’s a false friend from the literal translation or “Wie sieht es aus”.
My laborious point is that there can be different* ways of expressing the same thought without all parts of the phrase being interchangeable. I’m too lazy to even Wiki the etymology of the words ‘other’ and ‘different’, but I suspect their meanings approached each other from different origins, to the extent that I see a points failure, where you might see a natural ellision.
Language changes, and it can be a beautiful thing to see the icebergs shatter into the sea. Sometimes I just feel a bit like @Mikethep in that the very ground and structures around me are beginning to melt, thaw and resolve themselves into a dew.
____
* I think a ‘ha!’ is kind of expected here, isn’t it?
Enormity has lost it’s meaning, as it is generally used now to bring the size of something to attention, rather than something’s wickedness.
Apostrophes in “it’s” used to denote a contraction (e.g. “it is”) rather than being interchangeable with the neuter third person possessive pronoun “its”.
*runs away cackling evilly*
😉
It’s a fair cop Guv. You’ve got me bang to rights, an’ no messin’.
As a teacher I expect you’ll give me 100 lines – I must learn to pay more attention to detail and note where apostrophes are appropriate and where they are not
Just messing with you, Carl, as I hope was obvious. Couldn’t let it slide in a thread glorying in pedantry. 😉
Need to watch out for those full stops at the end of sentences too Carl.
*Shoots self*
Back to Primary School for me, then.
You’d quickly be gender-reassigned and fed Marxist propaganda by feminazis, for a start.
I read that in the Daily Express.
Another vote for ‘disinterested’ which I have given up picking people up on – its misuse seems to have passed a tipping point and so many people use it to mean uninterested that that’s what it now means.
Also ‘tragedy’. Another example of Tahir’s excellent point re hyperbole I guess. The trouble is that constant over-hyperbolic use devalues a word and does end up changing its meaning. Literally.
I’ve never been entirely sure about this ( along with many other correct uses of grammah).
Should I still express my ‘disinterest’ in a subject being debated or should I state that I am ‘uniterested’?
Who cares?
Awesome!
Beat me to it, David!
(The answer is, basically, nobody. I mean I get a slight twinge from it because the disinterested=impartial thing has been drummed into me since I could read, but in 50 years, that meaning will have “n. arch.” before the definition and it’ll just be a synonym for uninterested. These things happen and trying to stop it is a Cnut’s game.)
I fcuking hate anagrams.
French Connection made a mint with those t-shirts.
Certainly more lucrative than pickin’ your feet in Poughkeepsie.
*Applauds film reference that required googling to understand*
Required googling?
I am disappoint.
Hey Moose – I’m just a foothill sightseer – you lot are the true Alpinists.
Al Penis – my porno name revealed!!
I thought Moose the Mooche was that (or at least a bizarre practice popular with Canadians).
Why do you think I emigrated?
Presumably to spread the good news.
Better than spreading the nude gnus.
Actually the words “pedantry” and “pedant” seem to have subtly changed their meaning. They used to refer to an excessive, even tedious obsession with meaningless details, for the sole purpose of self-aggrandisement and showing off.
Now “pedant” seems to mean “one who is appropriately concerned with important facts and details”.
Was a time that saying “I am a pedant” wasn’t far off saying “I am a boring, fussy little twat”, but now people seem perfectly happy to use it about themselves.
I am a
pedantboring, fussy little twat.“It were always raining in Denley Moor” – Afterword t-shirt
If the latter definition is the case, I’m proud to be a pedant.
It’s not. Don’t be. 😉
But when other people call you a pedant, they mean “boring, fussy little twat”.
Ha!
Dis conversation is interesting.
Int it!
Er no.
‘Legend’ used to mean someone who probably didn’t exist. Now it’s used to refer to people who just wish didn’t exist.
See also – “You’re a star!” which used to refer to some spectacularly famous person and now means someone who has done some photocopying you couldn’t be arsed to do yourself.
never mind the evolution of “couldn’t be arsed” itself. Where da fuck dat one come from, and when?
A proper English gentleman would probably say “one simply cannot be bothered to get off ones arse”.
Oh I say!
And while we’re at it why are so, so many people – Mums, Dads and especially their sprogs – ‘amazing’ – expressed as a gushing, swivelled eyed sentiment?
It’s not amazing. They are just doing what you would reasonably expect they would do.
Balls to that – kids are amazing.
A couple of very good mates of mine have had babies this month. Watching them go through the experience of becoming parents for the first time, the mind-spinning, world churning love they’re feeling for those kids…. if that’s not amazing, then I honestly don’t know what is.
If you want to get pedantic about hyperbole there’s a bloke on this very thread talking about hanging, drawing and quartering people when I doubt he’s ever so much as lightly tortured anyone…
Ha, I can tell you’re not on Facebook. Hashtag so blessed.
That’s because Facebook is a load of old wank.
Old wank and new wank, to be fair.
Couldn’t agree more. I can’t really get myself into a place where people finding wonder and joy in their kids is in any way annoying.
I dunno. Some of the worst parents I know are ones with their kids names tattooed on them, who spend their whole time telling the world on Facebook that their kids are ‘amazing’, usually because said kid has posed for a cute photo.
You can be a bad parent and still think your kids are great. It’s probably the one thing most parents have in common, good or bad.
Maybe it’s some sort of Dunning–Kruger effect, whereby the more wised-up a parent you are, the more you see your own flaws, and shut up about it in public.
I see my attempt to slightly leaven the relentless curmudgeonliness of this thread is a bit of a hiding to nothing.
Though I’ve just got to let a ”wow” go in reaction to the sheer … something… of the idea that thinking your kids are amazing and saying so shows that they’re not and that you’re a shit parent. Woooooow. There we go.
Burt Kocain lives!
Neither “What a legend!” or “You’re a star!” are ever likely to supersede their original meanings. They are examples of deliberate exaggeration for comic effect, which has a long history in our language. Neither a person using them in that way or persons hearing them used so is taking them seriously.
There is a much greater danger of the word “legend” being degraded into just a synonym for “story”, I reckon.
Come to think of it, how did the word for a large body of burning gas in space get corrupted into a word to describe a person who is extremely famous in the world of entertainment or sport?
To curate used to describe the process of a highly qualified person researching, securing, organising and labelling a collection for display. These days any Tom, Dick or Harriet can throw together a Spotify playlist, selection of beers or plate of tapas and get away with calling it ‘curated’.
I’ve just curated a casserole and some parmentier potatoes.
A rather arcane example, if I may say so.
Tell that to the curator!
Oh wait, I suddenly get it! A curator is someone who starts an AW thread and moreover keeps it going. Ha! I done told it to the curator. So there.
I can save the OED first-usage researchers some time here, I think… I distinctly recall the first time I spotted the ‘curated’ word being applied to someone cobbling tracks together. It was a Mojo review for a various artists compilation album called ‘Meridian 1970’, which was released in 2005. Jon Savage was the compiler and that was used as a selling point – a bunch of out of the way tracks from a particular year (that was spun as being under-rated in pop history) compiled by someone known for writing books.
That ‘curating’ spin has been used since with other personality compilers, like the recent ‘English Weather’ comp by Bob Stanley. And Jon S has compiled a few more year-specific things.
To me, though, it’s still just compiling.
I have always been amused by “shite” as a more formal application of “shit”. It’s not an accent thing, it’s something that isn’t just “shit”….it’s “shite”.
“Shit” as an adjective is just too unsatisfactorily short when spoken. The magic “e” makes your contempt unmistakeable.
“Sheeeeeyiiiiiite!”
Just don’t get it confused with Sheeeeeyiiiiinola..
Or Sunni.
What?
Shite is very close in sound to the delightful German word pronounced in full as
schhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh—–ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy-serr
I would suggest that “shit” was a failed attempt at creating a posh version of “shite”.
“Shit” as a noun to describe a person is certainly a posh insult – a harsher version of cad, bounder, varlet etc.
Here’s the lowdown on shit:
shit (v.)
Old English scitan, from Proto-Germanic *skit- (source also of North Frisian skitj, Dutch schijten, German scheissen), from PIE root *skei- “to cut, split.” The notion is of “separation” from the body (compare Latin excrementum, from excernere “to separate,” Old English scearn “dung, muck,” from scieran “to cut, shear;” see sharn). It is thus a cousin to science and conscience.
And shite:
shite (n.)
colloquial modern alternative spelling of shit (n.), preserving the original vowel of the Old English verb.
2 genuine questions.
When did ‘named after’ suddenly become ‘named for’, as in ‘she named the dog after her husband’?
And why does every second sentence these days start with ‘so’, when it would once probably have started with ‘well’, in answer to a question? e.g. ‘how long have you been a contributor to the Afterword?’….. ‘so, I’ve been on the site for a number of years….’
Linguistic drift, Americanisation, or affectation?
Americanisation…. sorry, Americanization.
Next question!
‘Named for’ is definitely the Yanks fault, as is ‘normalcy’ instead of ‘normality.’ I hope that hasn’t made it over there yet. It’s so ugly.
“Normalcy” isn’t an Americanism, as anyone who’s read Bill Bryson’s “Mother Tongue” kno.
But it’s so closely associated with Warren G Harding. If it’s not an Americanism, where did it come from? I’ve never heard this expression outside the US.
I may have read this word, but has anyone in the US or anywhere else actually “heard” it?
Yes, frequently. On last night’s news, for instance, “looking forward to normalcy being restored” after these devastating fires around here.
‘Normalcy’ is as common in the US as ‘normality’ is in the UK.
Just hit the east side of the LBC
On a mission tryna find some normalcy…
Not the ‘so’ question, surely? Isn’t it the Godwin’s Law of language threads, catnip for pedants?
So, it was on Radio 4 recently and then I googled it. Apparently it isn’t a new phenomenon, but people may have only just started noticing it because:
a) it gives the speaker a breathing space to think of a response
c) West coast US tech guys used it and it spread to others who wanted to sound like they are a fount of complex wisdom which somehow has to be reduced to a soundbite for simpletons
Doesn’t “well” give breathing space equally…erm…well?
Sure, but ‘well’ doesn’t convey that trace of irritation at having to talk to civilians, does it?
I was responding to your a)
😉
Well, in that case, I suppose ‘so’ is no different from (to/than) ‘well’, but just fashion means it has taken its place.
(Can you tell I’m bluffing here?)
Breathing space?
In the good old days every question could be addressed with two toots on your pipe before answering.
Awkward questions, such as those regarding polar bears in Canada, might spark a sudden realisation that your pipe needed relighting before you could commence a reply..
Bluffing?
It hasn’t passed un-noticed, Sal 😉
What’s with these wry smileys?
I feel very much as if senior members of the club are advancing upon me with copies of the ancient and venerable rulebook sandwiched between Steely Dan tour catalogues and annotated copies of Revolution in The Head, warding me towards the exit on page 424 of the blog.
Quick, Tig! What’s the safeword?
Did someone say Guy Smiley?
It’s Friday night and I’m pissed, so this makes perfect sense:
Australian politicians use “look” to give themselves breathing space.
Over here, starting your reply with “Look,” is a strong indicator that you are annoyed and do not intend to reply politely.
Here, there’s also a subtext, which is, your question is almost too stupid to justify a response, but since it’s you I’ll answer it anyway.
When Tony B Liar started using “look” I assumed he meant: “You haven’t thought enough about this issue, so I’ll explain it in the sort of simple terms you can understand.”
I remember a very late appearance by the great Peter Jones on Just a Minute in the 90s. He was challenged for deviation by Clement Freud because he hadn’t started his answer with his customary “Well….”
she named the dog after her husband: He’s Henry, he’s Rover.
You can guarantee that at some point during this morning’s Ashes test from Adelaide a batsman will hit a boundary and one of the Australian commentators will say he’s “decimated the field”
Sorry, afternoon, forgot it’s a day-nighter
I can’t seem to answer the ‘wooooow’ comment above, but what you’re saying I’m saying is not what I’m saying, Bob. Not at all.
If it’s any consolation, I didn’t think you were saying what Bob thought you were saying.
What you were saying is that you hate children, quite specifically Bob’s. That’s clear.
Why not? It’s Christmas!
Oh, you!
😉
Wasn’t replying to you, LB – we’d run out of right hand side space!
Ah, apologies!
No worries! 🙂
Not so much spoken as in print, although TalkSport and 5Live now use it, but the fact that anyone who suggests anything that may be slightly contentious, is ‘insisting’. The latest example being Gareth Southgate ‘insists’ that England aren’t worried about their World Cup Group. No he doesn’t, he said it once, it’s not as if there was a lengthy argument about it where he continually expressed the same view.
Here’s one. Am I going mad or did the word ‘impact’ used to just be a noun, then sneakily started being used as a verb as well? I cringe whenever I hear sentences like ‘this has impacted the projections for next quarter’…
As Calvin once said to Hobbes, ‘Verbing weirds words’.
And as Hobbes replies, ‘Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.’ https://zimmerbitch.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/word-ish-wednesday-verbing-weirds-language/
Now that this thread has come back to life, when and why did “shop” become a transitive verb? As in “shop iPod”? What’s wrong with “buy”? Obviously I blame Apple for this, because they were the first people I noticed doing it, but presumably it’s been an American thing for a while, and now it’s everywhere. It’s not wrong exactly, it’s not ambiguous, it’s just…annoying. OOAA no doubt…
“Shop Different”
Oscar Wilde noted that the words “in fact” usually precede a lie.
Billy Connolly dyed his hair and found out that people who commented on it before saying hello were always twats.
Similarly, I have found, anyone saying “super-excited” or “super-pumped” about something routine in the workplace is not to be trusted.
Similarly, anyone who describes themselves as ‘super smart’ can only be a berk.
Regardless of the appointment of somebody to a position, you will invariably read of them being anointed.
Stay there long enough and they will doubtless become an icon.
Legend!!
A slight aside (am I allowed to say that?).
Two things I get really cheesed off with are the double negative (I ain’t done nuffink) & the misusing of & have.
Get me.
I new I shouldn’t of woke up this thread.
A thread from 2017 that was slumbering peacefully. and now you have brought it back to life, Moose.
You must feel like the archaeologists who opened the burial place of King Tut.
Tomb Raider Moose!
Some meaty MeToo moments ahead…..
Meat Too?
Damn, this all kicked off while I was asleep, was my first thought. Ah yes, Moose…was my second when I saw the date. You’re doing a valuable service, my friend, if only because I can now bring up something that’s been mildly obsessing me over the past four years, viz.:
When did ‘look on’ become ‘watch on’? And why?
I’ve noticed that. The answer is… bell-ends. Bell-ends as far as the eye can see. It’s like a Robert Mapplethorpe calendar out there.
ARF! That’s pretty much the answer to everything when you think about it…
As relevant in 2017 as it is now:
Tottenham… trophy… that’s “t.r.o.p.h.y.”