Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

merriam-webster.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 337 posts

Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

#61

Post by ycombinete »

denton-scratch wrote: post #25

Merriam-Webster brags in TFA about their descriptivist reputation; and indeed, they are thw arch-descriptivists. But I'm not aware of any contemporary publisher of dictionaries that doesn't take a descriptivist stance. This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can't rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage. "Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can'…

Collins dictionary is my go to. I avoid Miriam Webster. Unfortunately MW appears to have won the SEO wars.

Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

#63

Post by Izkata »

> By the early 17th century nonplus was being used as a verb, with the meaning of “to cause to be at a loss as to what to say, think, or do.” Then, as now, the word is often encountered in its participial form (nonplussed), with a meaning that is nearly synonymous with “perplexed.”

I never knew this meaning - as far as I remember I've always interpreted it as some form of "unconcerned" / "that's not relevant to me". I guess by outward appearance "at a loss for words" and "unconcerned" are kinda similar, even if the cause is different, which is why it's always fit well-enough in context.

Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

#64

Post by Y_Y »

denton-scratch wrote: post #25

Merriam-Webster brags in TFA about their descriptivist reputation; and indeed, they are thw arch-descriptivists. But I'm not aware of any contemporary publisher of dictionaries that doesn't take a descriptivist stance. This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can't rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage. "Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can'…

> It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate.

> I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way.

> I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it, since I was travelling cognito. Beknownst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do.

etc.

- Jack Winter

Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

#65

Post by ilitirit »

On a tangential note, one of my pet peeves is the way that many people (mostly Americans?) pronounce words like "processes" as "process-eez".

Words with Greek roots that end in -is or -es generally use the -eez suffix. e.g. analysis -> analyses; thesis -> theses

In the case of Latin, it's -ix or -ex. e.g. index - indices, appendix - appendices.

There are of course exceptions and outliers (suffix -> suffixes; octopus -> octopodes!?), but words like "process" and "bias" do not fall into the categories mentioned, so there's no reason to use the non-standard "processeez" and "biaseez". Unless - IMO - you want to sound like a snob... Think about it - how does one pronounce words like "successes" or "princesses"?

One could argue that language evolves - this is true, but in general language evolves to have simpler rules with fewer exceptions rather than the other way around.

Stop, let's all try to stop the madnesseez.

Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

#66

Post by Waterluvian »

mbork_pl wrote: post #5
Waterluvian wrote: post #3

Don’t ruin it for me! It’s one of my favourite words, but I really have no idea why. Maybe because it’s just so odd.

> It’s one of my favourite words Wait, shouldn't it be the second one, right after _petrichor_?

In my opinion, that's a very ugly word for such a beautiful smell.

Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

#68

Post by Karellen »

bxparks wrote: post #40
jawns wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merriam-Webster has its own entry about just that topic: words that are their own antonyms! https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-own-opposites

That was a fascinating article. > Cleave is often cited as the go-to contronym: it can refer to splitting something apart and to uniting two things Weird, I cannot remember ever seeing "cleave" used to mean "uniting two things". "Inflammable" is my go-to example of a word that shouldn't exist in the English language. Causes too much confusion. I always use "flammable" and "nonflammable".

> "Inflammable" is my go-to example of a word that shouldn't exist in the English language.

What about "inflammation" (from the same root), like what happens when you bruise yourself, or injure a joint? Is that OK?

Or you should you get a "flammation" instead?

Edit: Or when interpersonal tensions are high, and a situation becomes inflamed?

Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

#69

Post by foobarian »

slibhb wrote: post #23

First they came for literally and I did nothing because I wasn't a pedant. Then they came for nonplussed and I still did nothing because I'm still not a pedant. I sure hope they don't come for pedant next.

That begs the question, what will you do about it?

Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)

#70

Post by Y_Y »

wongarsu wrote: post #35
jackcosgrove wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ‘Inflammable’ means flammable? What a country! -Dr Nick

That one's fun, because they don't really mean the same. It's just that there usually is no functional difference between the meanings. "to inflame" is to set something on fire. "to flame" is to be on fire. So something that's inflammable can be set on fire, something that's flammable can burn.

I would have said the same thing as you, but it now occurs to me that something that is already on fire must be flammable but it is hardly inflammable since you couldn't set it on fire again (without first putting it out at least).
Post reply on HN