Ridiculous. No, not the word itself, but when it’s used to emphasise, especially in sports commentary such as “That’s a ridiculous catch”.
No, it’s a great catch, an outstanding catch, an amazing catch: there are others. But ridiculous? Is someone trying to denigrate an action?
An expression heard in Scandinavian North American settlements (mostly Minnesota and the Dakotas. "Oofda" kind of like a mild explicative. Untranslatable, but I always thought it came close to the sh-t variety.
They also liked to use the dangling preposition. "Do you like to go with?"
The Royal Bank of Scotland slogan Tomorrow begins today
How does that work? If tomorrow has begun, is it simultaneously still today, or not? Presumably today began yesterday, when today was yesterday's tomorrow?
Does that mean, if they tell you a cheque will clear on Wednesday, it might clear on Tuesday (as on Tuesday, Wednesday is the tomorrow which has already begun).
When exactly today, does tomorrow begin? When did yesterday end? Between what hours is today unambiguously today?
What is the implication for the Sabbatarian churches?
This stuff really messes with your mind in a queue at the bank, when you are surrounded by this nonsensical slogan.
Captain Pyjamas came out with that as a very small person once. We put to bed and told him, "We're going on holiday tomorrow". Next morning he arrived in our room and asked, "Is it tomorrow today?"
Did not Shakespaere write, 'tomorrow and tomorrow and today and walk in this petty pace from day to day? I remember when we were told the weekend used to start on Friday .... I don't think so!
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
The weekend (literal sense) DOES start on Friday,and ends on Saturday. Sunday is the first day of a new week.
Yeah, I know nobody uses it that way!
But it's a really helpful example to use when some goofball starts having a fit because "how can you say Jesus rose on the third day when it was less than 48 hours total" etc. etc. etc.
Where did “rammed” replace “crammed” in the sense of uncomfortably full or crowded?
Younger daughter manages a ten pin bowl centre and she uses it often.
Is it just me objecting to new and entirely legitimate usage or has it always been thus.
I am weary of seeing ‘ benefactor’ when the writers (of questions in a forum about Wills ) mean ‘ beneficiary’. - and ‘ Will’ when they mean ‘ estate’.
Ridiculous. No, not the word itself, but when it’s used to emphasise, especially in sports commentary such as “That’s a ridiculous catch”.
No, it’s a great catch, an outstanding catch, an amazing catch: there are others. But ridiculous? Is someone trying to denigrate an action?
A ridiculous catch is one that the catcher should not have been able to reach but somehow through incredibly* good reactions/stretching/footwork/co-ordination they made it. It is well beyond great/outstanding/amazing.
I still detest the use of ridiculous in the circumstances I mentioned and, as you correctly suggested, I object to “incredibly” too: how can an observable fact be incredible?
I still detest the use of ridiculous in the circumstances I mentioned and, as you correctly suggested, I object to “incredibly” too: how can an observable fact be incredible?
Because "incredible" isn't defined by its etymology. It's defined by its usage.
Coronated. Its just plain wrong - the word is crowned. Normalcy - you mean either normal or normality. Gifted, as in "they were gifted the ...." No they weren't, they were given it. Kids for children - unless, of course, they are born to a caprine family
I still detest the use of ridiculous in the circumstances I mentioned and, as you correctly suggested, I object to “incredibly” too: how can an observable fact be incredible?
Because "incredible" isn't defined by its etymology. It's defined by its usage.
Gifted, as in "they were gifted the ...." No they weren't, they were given it.
“Gifted” makes my skin crawl, too. But I have to acknowledge that “gift” as a verb dates back to the 1500s. And I also recognize that “give” doesn’t necessarily mean “make a gift of”; it can simply mean “convey,” as in “he gave me Covid.” So I can understand the desire to use a word that makes clear it was a gift, not just a conveyance.
Where did “rammed” replace “crammed” in the sense of uncomfortably full or crowded?
Younger daughter manages a ten pin bowl centre and she uses it often.
Is it just me objecting to new and entirely legitimate usage or has it always been thus.
To me rammed doesn't imply that it's too crowded it implies that the item was pushed in violently. "He ran onto the full train, ramming himself up into the already crammed car."
Where did “rammed” replace “crammed” in the sense of uncomfortably full or crowded?
Younger daughter manages a ten pin bowl centre and she uses it often.
Is it just me objecting to new and entirely legitimate usage or has it always been thus.
To me rammed doesn't imply that it's too crowded it implies that the item was pushed in violently. "He ran onto the full train, ramming himself up into the already crammed car."
"The place was absolutely rammed" is quite an imaginative phrasing. It implies that it was so crowded that it was as if people had been literally rammed in.
A lot of these words that people dislike are actually quite appropriate metaphors.
I still detest the use of ridiculous in the circumstances I mentioned and, as you correctly suggested, I object to “incredibly” too: how can an observable fact be incredible?
Because "incredible" isn't defined by its etymology. It's defined by its usage.
Like 'decimated'? A word that has lost its meaning through sloppy use.
I still detest the use of ridiculous in the circumstances I mentioned and, as you correctly suggested, I object to “incredibly” too: how can an observable fact be incredible?
Because "incredible" isn't defined by its etymology. It's defined by its usage.
Like 'decimated'? A word that has lost its meaning through sloppy use.
Why such judgemental language?
People learn words by hearing other people use them. This transmission is lossy. Meanings change. It is what makes language alive. It's not "'sloppy" use; it's semantic change through transmission.
It hasn't lost its meaning; it's changed its meaning, presumably because since the end of the Western Roman Empire we've not needed a word for killing every tenth man in a group of soldiers.
I still detest the use of ridiculous in the circumstances I mentioned and, as you correctly suggested, I object to “incredibly” too: how can an observable fact be incredible?
Because "incredible" isn't defined by its etymology. It's defined by its usage.
Like 'decimated'? A word that has lost its meaning through sloppy use.
Why such judgemental language?
People learn words by hearing other people use them. This transmission is lossy. Meanings change. It is what makes language alive. It's not "'sloppy" use; it's semantic change through transmission.
It hasn't lost its meaning; it's changed its meaning, presumably because since the end of the Western Roman Empire we've not needed a word for killing every tenth man in a group of soldiers.
Is it still valuable to maintain the earlier meaning as a distinct one, to contrast it with the modern usage which, as far as I can tell, means to kill something like all but one in ten
I still detest the use of ridiculous in the circumstances I mentioned and, as you correctly suggested, I object to “incredibly” too: how can an observable fact be incredible?
Because "incredible" isn't defined by its etymology. It's defined by its usage.
Like 'decimated'? A word that has lost its meaning through sloppy use.
Why such judgemental language?
People learn words by hearing other people use them. This transmission is lossy. Meanings change. It is what makes language alive. It's not "'sloppy" use; it's semantic change through transmission.
It hasn't lost its meaning; it's changed its meaning, presumably because since the end of the Western Roman Empire we've not needed a word for killing every tenth man in a group of soldiers.
Is it still valuable to maintain the earlier meaning as a distinct one, to contrast it with the modern usage which, as far as I can tell, means to kill something like all but one in ten
I cannot think of a situation where I need the original sense. This is why words change meanings - they expand to fill the useful available space. The language works perfectly well with the "modern" usage, which has in fact been attested since the 17th century.
I still detest the use of ridiculous in the circumstances I mentioned and, as you correctly suggested, I object to “incredibly” too: how can an observable fact be incredible?
Because "incredible" isn't defined by its etymology. It's defined by its usage.
Like 'decimated'? A word that has lost its meaning through sloppy use.
Why such judgemental language?
People learn words by hearing other people use them. This transmission is lossy. Meanings change. It is what makes language alive. It's not "'sloppy" use; it's semantic change through transmission.
It hasn't lost its meaning; it's changed its meaning, presumably because since the end of the Western Roman Empire we've not needed a word for killing every tenth man in a group of soldiers.
Is it still valuable to maintain the earlier meaning as a distinct one, to contrast it with the modern usage which, as far as I can tell, means to kill something like all but one in ten
I cannot think of a situation where I need the original sense.
The one situation I can think of is when reading something relating to the Roman Empire and the original meaning. And in those instances, the original meaning is likely to be noted, in case the reader doesn’t already know it.
But yeah, decimation in the original Latin sense isn’t really a thing anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time.
"The place was absolutely rammed" is quite an imaginative phrasing. It implies that it was so crowded that it was as if people had been literally rammed in.
A lot of these words that people dislike are actually quite appropriate metaphors.
I think I'll stand by the assertion that every single past participle in the English language, when used with "totally" or "absolutely" can mean drunk.
OK - I'll avoid being judgemental and simply observe that the following from a BBC article about Greenland sharks might appear to some to employ an increasingly common non-traditional meaning of potential where there might be more appropriate alternatives:
"It's important to be mindful that we don’t know why this animal died, and which potential diseases it could have within it."
Some will have issues with mindful too but I'll leave that alone.
"The place was absolutely rammed" is quite an imaginative phrasing. It implies that it was so crowded that it was as if people had been literally rammed in.
A lot of these words that people dislike are actually quite appropriate metaphors.
I think I'll stand by the assertion that every single past participle in the English language, when used with "totally" or "absolutely" can mean drunk.
Maybe controversial, but - 'eulogy' in a funeral service. To eulogise is to praise extravagantly, and by implication not totally realistically. Much better, surely, to remember someone as they were. I tend to encourage 'tribute' as an alternative. However, I admit it's really just my personal aversion.
Maybe controversial, but - 'eulogy' in a funeral service. To eulogise is to praise extravagantly, and by implication not totally realistically. Much better, surely, to remember someone as they were. I tend to encourage 'tribute' as an alternative. However, I admit it's really just my personal aversion.
I agree with the use of 'eulogy'. I have used 'appreciation', which can cover a wide range of characteristics.
Maybe controversial, but - 'eulogy' in a funeral service. To eulogise is to praise extravagantly, and by implication not totally realistically.
I think that's a connotation that has crept in under the assumption that speaking well of someone is always extravagant and unrealistic. OED is unaware of it.
Certainly language changes constantly (look at how 'nice' has morphed over the years). But the trouble with losing the former meaning of words such as 'disinterested' is that you lose the concept with it. Without the word, the thought can no longer be formulated.
The use of 'disinterested' when the meaning is (meant to be) 'uninterested'.
I thought the original meaning was 'unbiased' but it has been 'uninterested' for some time now. Is it changing again?
As a linguist, I am fascinated by watching linguistic changes in progress.
As an indexer, I am saddened by the loss of the distinction between 'fewer' and 'less.'
As a human being I stand by my right to be annoyed and disgusted by 'picky bits.'
The Fewer and Less distinction was a rule invented by Robert Baker in 1770 based on his personal preference. I break it freely.
I think it’s probably fair to say that fewer can only be used for countables, but less can be used for both countables and non-countables. You can have less sheep or fewer sheep, but you can’t have fewer water.
The use of 'disinterested' when the meaning is (meant to be) 'uninterested'.
I thought the original meaning was 'unbiased' but it has been 'uninterested' for some time now. Is it changing again?
As a linguist, I am fascinated by watching linguistic changes in progress.
As an indexer, I am saddened by the loss of the distinction between 'fewer' and 'less.'
As a human being I stand by my right to be annoyed and disgusted by 'picky bits.'
The Fewer and Less distinction was a rule invented by Robert Baker in 1770 based on his personal preference. I break it freely.
I think it’s probably fair to say that fewer can only be used for countables, but less can be used for both countables and non-countables. You can have less sheep or fewer sheep, but you can’t have fewer water.
Correct. That reflects how the words are actually used in the corpus and in the speech of most speakers.
Certainly language changes constantly (look at how 'nice' has morphed over the years). But the trouble with losing the former meaning of words such as 'disinterested' is that you lose the concept with it. Without the word, the thought can no longer be formulated.
That would be a form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is generally discredited in linguistic circles. Words like "impartial", "unbiased", "uninvolved", "dispassionate" and phrases like "no dog in this fight" extend to fill the space.
Certainly language changes constantly (look at how 'nice' has morphed over the years). But the trouble with losing the former meaning of words such as 'disinterested' is that you lose the concept with it. Without the word, the thought can no longer be formulated.
That assumes disinterested is the only way to express that concept, but it’s not. Unbiased, dispassionate, unprejudiced and impartial all get at the same concept, as do phrases like “not having an interest in,” “not having a stake in” or “not having a dog in the fight.”
ETA: Sorry, @KarlLB posted essentially the same point while I was, with some distractions, drafting.
I have never felt that a sentence would be clearer if we had two different words for 'more' depending on whether it referred to countables or uncountable quantities.
As an indexer, I am saddened by the loss of the distinction between 'fewer' and 'less.'
Less things like this bother you when you discover they were never real rules but invented by 18th century grammarians.
I doubt grammarians invented rules, rather they codified them in response to usage or need.
Not at all. This particular rule was invented because the guy in question preferred to make the distinction. The reality is that people before and since had been freely using "less" for both count and non-count nouns. He was reflecting neither established usage nor need.
He wrote:
(less) is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better..."No fewer than a Hundred" appears to me, not only more elegant than "No less than a Hundred", but more strictly proper.
It was a stylistic preference with, as he admits, no support in the corpus.
I think it’s safe to say he was reflecting actual usage of “fewer,” and based on that actual usage he opined what he thought should be correct use of “less.”
Comments
Agreed 100%. It’s dreadful. It’s common on social media and that tells everything.
No, it’s a great catch, an outstanding catch, an amazing catch: there are others. But ridiculous? Is someone trying to denigrate an action?
They also liked to use the dangling preposition. "Do you like to go with?"
With whom? With what?
How does that work? If tomorrow has begun, is it simultaneously still today, or not? Presumably today began yesterday, when today was yesterday's tomorrow?
Does that mean, if they tell you a cheque will clear on Wednesday, it might clear on Tuesday (as on Tuesday, Wednesday is the tomorrow which has already begun).
When exactly today, does tomorrow begin? When did yesterday end? Between what hours is today unambiguously today?
What is the implication for the Sabbatarian churches?
This stuff really messes with your mind in a queue at the bank, when you are surrounded by this nonsensical slogan.
I guess the bank is using little kid logic.
The weekend (literal sense) DOES start on Friday,and ends on Saturday. Sunday is the first day of a new week.
Yeah, I know nobody uses it that way!
But it's a really helpful example to use when some goofball starts having a fit because "how can you say Jesus rose on the third day when it was less than 48 hours total" etc. etc. etc.
Younger daughter manages a ten pin bowl centre and she uses it often.
Is it just me objecting to new and entirely legitimate usage or has it always been thus.
A ridiculous catch is one that the catcher should not have been able to reach but somehow through incredibly* good reactions/stretching/footwork/co-ordination they made it. It is well beyond great/outstanding/amazing.
* This word might irritate someone ...
Because "incredible" isn't defined by its etymology. It's defined by its usage.
Normalcy - you mean either normal or normality.
Gifted, as in "they were gifted the ...." No they weren't, they were given it.
Kids for children - unless, of course, they are born to a caprine family
“Gifted” makes my skin crawl, too. But I have to acknowledge that “gift” as a verb dates back to the 1500s. And I also recognize that “give” doesn’t necessarily mean “make a gift of”; it can simply mean “convey,” as in “he gave me Covid.” So I can understand the desire to use a word that makes clear it was a gift, not just a conveyance.
It still makes my skin crawl, though.
To me rammed doesn't imply that it's too crowded it implies that the item was pushed in violently. "He ran onto the full train, ramming himself up into the already crammed car."
Have I said that I think “hate” is overused?
"The place was absolutely rammed" is quite an imaginative phrasing. It implies that it was so crowded that it was as if people had been literally rammed in.
A lot of these words that people dislike are actually quite appropriate metaphors.
Like 'decimated'? A word that has lost its meaning through sloppy use.
Why such judgemental language?
People learn words by hearing other people use them. This transmission is lossy. Meanings change. It is what makes language alive. It's not "'sloppy" use; it's semantic change through transmission.
It hasn't lost its meaning; it's changed its meaning, presumably because since the end of the Western Roman Empire we've not needed a word for killing every tenth man in a group of soldiers.
Is it still valuable to maintain the earlier meaning as a distinct one, to contrast it with the modern usage which, as far as I can tell, means to kill something like all but one in ten
I cannot think of a situation where I need the original sense. This is why words change meanings - they expand to fill the useful available space. The language works perfectly well with the "modern" usage, which has in fact been attested since the 17th century.
But yeah, decimation in the original Latin sense isn’t really a thing anymore, and hasn’t been for a long time.
It may be a generational thing of course.
@sionisais - it seems that you and I have similar views on these things.
@KarlLB - judgemental? Yes. Guilty as charged. Deal with it.
I think I'll stand by the assertion that every single past participle in the English language, when used with "totally" or "absolutely" can mean drunk.
"It's important to be mindful that we don’t know why this animal died, and which potential diseases it could have within it."
Some will have issues with mindful too but I'll leave that alone.
Ichael McIntyre had a comedy routine based on words for drunk.
https://youtu.be/O597Bs6LZ7U?is=WsbSOelcobH3YAoQ
I agree with the use of 'eulogy'. I have used 'appreciation', which can cover a wide range of characteristics.
I thought the original meaning was 'unbiased' but it has been 'uninterested' for some time now. Is it changing again?
As a linguist, I am fascinated by watching linguistic changes in progress.
As an indexer, I am saddened by the loss of the distinction between 'fewer' and 'less.'
As a human being I stand by my right to be annoyed and disgusted by 'picky bits.'
The Fewer and Less distinction was a rule invented by Robert Baker in 1770 based on his personal preference. I break it freely.
I agree with the use of 'eulogy'. I have used 'appreciation', which can cover a wide range of characteristics.[/quote]
Good! I'll bank that.
I think it’s probably fair to say that fewer can only be used for countables, but less can be used for both countables and non-countables. You can have less sheep or fewer sheep, but you can’t have fewer water.
Correct. That reflects how the words are actually used in the corpus and in the speech of most speakers.
That would be a form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is generally discredited in linguistic circles. Words like "impartial", "unbiased", "uninvolved", "dispassionate" and phrases like "no dog in this fight" extend to fill the space.
ETA: Sorry, @KarlLB posted essentially the same point while I was, with some distractions, drafting.
That makes me grind my teeth in public, yell at the radio in private.
Less things like this bother you when you discover they were never real rules but invented by 18th century grammarians.
This does encourage me to boldly break these rules.
I doubt grammarians invented rules, rather they codified them in response to usage or need.
Not at all. This particular rule was invented because the guy in question preferred to make the distinction. The reality is that people before and since had been freely using "less" for both count and non-count nouns. He was reflecting neither established usage nor need.
He wrote:
It was a stylistic preference with, as he admits, no support in the corpus.
More can be found at the Wikipedia article on fewer versus less.