Mind your language

[SusanDoris]

Dawkins support for the Atheist bus was not to increase the numbers of atheists?, His call for atheists to openly tackle religion was not a recruitment attempt for New Atheism? His campaign for census atheism was due to his disinterest in atheist numbers?

I think you mean 'lack of interest'; I do not think you mean 'disinterest'.

Apologies, but I'm picking this out because it is the  thing that irritates me most in language use.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you mean 'lack of interest'; I do not think you mean 'disinterest'.

Apologies, but I'm picking this out because it is the  thing that irritates me most in language use.

I think that's a lost battle, dictionaries now have lack of interest as non formal definition. And 'literally' has gone the same way.

[Maeght]

Literally! Its sooooo annoying the way people use that word these days.

[SusanDoris]

I think that's a lost battle, dictionaries now have lack of interest as non formal definition. And 'literally' has gone the same way.

That is sad indeed.

[Nearly Sane]

Literally! Its sooooo annoying the way people use that word these days.

See the below. It is still a knife to the heart, not literally, when I hear it used in that way,

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally


Anyway was Billy Graham literally anti gay rights?

[Stranger]

Literally! Its sooooo annoying the way people use that word these days.

Yeah, it literally makes my blood boil...   

BTW according to Oxford Dictionaries, the earliest recorded sense of disinterested is for the 'incorrect' use.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

I think you mean 'lack of interest'; I do not think you mean 'disinterest'.

Apologies, but I'm picking this out because it is the  thing that irritates me most in language use.

Yes, though he’s pretty much indifferent to the meanings of words. Pedant that I am, what bugs me in particular by the way is not so much when meanings change but when people use words to mean substantially the opposite of their actual meanings (“invariably” when they mean “usually”, “underestimate” when they mean “overestimate” etc).

[Anchorman]

I think that's a lost battle, dictionaries now have lack of interest as non formal definition. And 'literally' has gone the same way.

Whs csres? The leid disna stay the same.
Inglis changes, like ony ither leid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

Whs csres? The leid disna stay the same.
Inglis changes, like ony ither leid.

I do. Not so much when words change their meanings (that happens all the time) but when the change coarsens the language or loses useful content. Take “anticipate” and “expect” for example. They’re pretty much used interchangeably these days (“I don’t anticipate rain today”) when they actually mean different things. To anticipate something you have to do something beforehand related to the subsequent event  (“I anticipated rain by bringing my umbrella to work”), whereas what people usually mean is just that they don’t expect rain – ie, they don’t thinks it’s likely to happen.

And if I hear one more Radio 4 reporter telling me that it's "impossible to underestimate the importance of the PM's words" or some such when he actually manes that it's impossible to overestimate them I'll not be responsible for my actions...     

[SusanDoris]

Ah well now! On the subject of Radio 4, I have given up trying to point out that it is laziness to use an apostrophy smeaning 'has, and making it sound like 'is', thus changing the meaning....

Example:
... the PM's arranged a meeting...

It sounds like: the PM.is instead of, as it should, the PM has

Okay it doesn't happen every time, but too often for comfort!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is a moderator reading perhaps the branch of this thread concerned with the misuse of language could be spun off on to it's own thread.

[bluehillside Retd.]

"it's"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"it's"?

Moderator....Please hurry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Tell you what though, it might be good to have a "Language Corner" or similar permanently here ("Mind You Language" maybe?) so this kind of thing could be talked about. Linguistic quirks and oddities, derivations, "makes by blood boil" abuses etc would all have their space. Big topic, and one I find fascinating. Does anyone else think so?   

[Rhiannon]

"it's"?

IME this is often courtesy of Apple autocorrect.

[Gordon]

Tell you what though, it might be good to have a "Language Corner" or similar permanently here ("Mind You Language" maybe?) so this kind of thing could be talked about. Linguistic quirks and oddities, derivations, "makes by blood boil" abuses etc would all have their space. Big topic, and one I find fascinating. Does anyone else think so?

Go for it!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Go for it!

How? Isn't it for the Mods to set up a new permanent space (or whatever it's called)?

[Rhiannon]

Gordon,

How? Isn't it for the Mods to set up a new permanent space (or whatever it's called)?

You start it, they'll sticky it.

[wigginhall]

Good idea.   Going back to 'literally', of course there is the argument that it can be used non-literally.  So if you say, 'I was literally frying in the heat', you are using it non-literally.   Well, hmm, dunno. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

You start it, they'll sticky it.

Ah OK - I'll try that then. Thanks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

Good idea.   Going back to 'literally', of course there is the argument that it can be used non-literally.  So if you say, 'I was literally frying in the heat', you are using it non-literally.   Well, hmm, dunno.

Bob Geldof's (from memory), "Every pound you send will literally go into the mouths of the starving children" comes to mind. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

A place for all matters linguistic. Got something interesting about language to say? An oddity, a derivation, a "this really gets my goat" bugbear perhaps?

Is, "Got something interesting about language to say?" a dangling epithet for example?

Well, here's a place for it. I'll start - am I alone in wincing at "try and" rather than "try to" (as in, "I'll try and get the answer for you")? 

Go for it!

[SusanDoris]

I have a page in 'my documents' which is titled 'impersonal synonyms'.
It contains:

Impartial, independent, disinterested, objective, dispassionate, detached, impersonal, indifferent

It is quite annoying sometimes, though, when I want a word that isn't quite]/I] any of those...

Anyone know any more?
Anyone disagree with the ones I have?

I hope this fits in with this new thread, by the way. If not, I will happily delete!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shouldn't Reply 21 now be the OP? Looks a bit odd otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

Shouldn't Reply 21 now be the OP? Looks a bit odd otherwise.

Software doesn't support that.