Awesome link. Difference between subverting a proper noun (Kindle) and subjective word choice. The first is clear cut: it's a proper noun! The second can be a fine line: you don't make a compelling argument about abortion by calling pro-choicers "pro-murder".
> Here you and I are having a civil discussion and meta-conversation. We can literally talk about how the word is used, misunderstood, weaponised, etc.
I'm pretty curious if you agree with them there (I've actually been meaning to get around to asking someone else for their opinion but it's still emotionally a bit difficult). (I think this subthread is dead enough that no one but you will read this)
“Improper nouns”, where the meaning of a phrase is more than a sum of the meanings of its constituent words, are not just strictly technical terms. It’s in the way we think and communicate, a word or a grouping of words encountered repeatedly in a certain context acquires a meaning influenced by said context.
“Freedom of speech” might be a good example of one. It is a shortcut for a certain concept that is fairly expansive, and not without ambiguities of its own. Now it’s common to see it deconstructed into constituent words, and a sum of their meanings (selected by the communicator) used to give the phrase a new meaning that suits current communication goals the most.
Occasionally one party may use the resulting mismatch in meaning to blame the other for duplicity: how dare they say our country has free speech (1) whereas what it has isn’t even close to free speech (2)?
There's a massive difference between changing your own word usage to use a term that you think is a better description, and attempting to police other people's word usage.
Ahh, yes. Always useful to continuously cherry-pick or alter definitions to tailor words that have an objectively negative moral implication to apply to exactly the standards you want.
Just because some publications use the word in that way does not mean the definition of the word should be shifted.
This isn't an argument. If I used a word to mean the opposite of what it actually means I'd want someone to point it out. Just like if I get an author's name wrong I'd want someone to point it out. (Thanks for pointing it out.)
> It's not just that some people dislike it; it's simply wrong.
Language changes. Words frequently develop the opposite meaning of what they originally had—opposites seem to be semantically closer and more prone to switching than completely unrelated words. When a word changes meaning, it is not wrong to use it in the new way, and at some point it even becomes wrong to use it in the original way: if you used "terrific" to mean "inspiring terror", you would confuse most of your audience!
In this particular case what I find funny is that the author acknowledges that this semantic shift has been going on for hundreds of years and all that was holding it back was the language purists. According to their own account, when the purists fell out of favor in the 60s it was like a dam burst.
The "incorrect" usage recently overtook the correct one in published books:
Why is it ok to be prescriptive with things like spelling of words but not grammar or the meaning of words? If people are using words in a way that doesn't make sense to the reader, such as changing the meaning of them to be the opposite like the word factoid, it's not the reader that is wrong by pointing out that the word has a different meaning than intended. I have no problem calling out such use as being wrong.
It is not my subjective opinion whether people are arguing over a word. I think you are confusing people who dislike the usage of a word with people (like me) recognizing that the word is contentious for that reason.
I’m not making a claim that it is “objectively incorrect”. I am merely attempting to discourage this kind of usage, because I this it is a better course for language for it to not be used in this way.
(Also, whether it is included in dictionaries doesn’t really matter as to “correctnesss”. All words are real words.)
I'm not debating the definition of the word. I'm saying I avoid using it where I can because I've personally found it hard to get multiple people to agree on the definition - you're proving the point by debating against your own link.
reply