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

91–100 of 337 posts

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

#91

Post by ajmurmann »

talkingtab wrote: post #78

Words and meaning. This talks about how words come to mean something else. Nonplussed was "not knowing what to do". Now it is becoming "unruffled". But it raises a question. Do words evolve by mistake, or do they evolve because we need to say something and we don't have the right word for it? Unruffled, unaffected, unimpressed - for me all have a sense of ignoring a situation. Nixon was unaffected by student protests…

I think there are at least two forces that lead to words changing meaning:

1. We are looking to express a emotion but want to empathize it more. Existing words get "used up" because we tend to inflate the strength. This is how we get words like "sick!", "awesome" (which changed meaning quite a while ago). Either new words get created or existing ones get taken over.

2. Some people literally don't understand the original meaning and their usage takes over. Supposedly this has happened with "literally".

My guess is that "nonplussed" is experiencing a little of both. Also "unruffled" IMO sounds terrible to modern ears (saying that as a ESL person though). Sounds like someone got out of bed and their hair is still excellent.

Edit: after talking about this with my author wife, I think "unruffled" and "nonplussed" also mean sightly different things to me. "Unruffled" acknowledges that there might be reason to care. "Nonplussed" to me is a lot more dismissive. Which kinda makes it fit my reason 1 for me.

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

#92

Post by wongarsu »

Y_Y wrote: post #70
wongarsu wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You could also argue that some things, like most metal powders, are barely inflammable (very hard to light) but are very flammable (once they do burn they burn really well and are hard to put out)

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

#93

Post by BobbyTables2 »

ilitirit wrote: post #65

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…

Let me guess, you’re one of them — those that pronounce “adjective” as aject-ive… :-)

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

#94

Post by booleandilemma »

When speaking, much like when writing code, I try to keep things simple. This means using small, common words so that I can be sure that people understand me when I talk.

Most of my coworkers aren't fluent in English anyway, so it helps to not confuse them.

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

#95

Post by lgeorget »

poszlem wrote: post #52

Funnily enough, as a non-native speaker, I always thought "nonplussed" was a kind of Orwellian newspeak (like "doubleplusgood").

As a French, and as to uphold our reputation as an arrogant bunch, I though it was adopted from the French language. "moi non plus" means "me neither" so "I'm nonplussed" = "I have no idea either".

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

#96

Post by Angostura »

djur wrote: post #20

The word is skunked at this point. Using it guarantees that readers are going to have to pause and refer to the context, and depending on the context it may not even be possible to confidently disambiguate. Luckily both meanings have ample synonyms.

… I’m entirely nonplussed by your use of ‘skunked’.

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

#97

Post by whlr »

ilitirit wrote: post #65

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…

I don't think it's true that languages get simpler over time.

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

#98

Post by masfuerte »

emmelaich wrote: post #81
ilitirit wrote: post #65

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…

This may be an attempt to distinguish it phonetically from processORs.

Maybe they were actually saying processees (whom processors act upon).

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

#99

Post by seventytwo »

huygens6363 wrote: post #48
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.

You are literally nonplussed.

A+

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

#100

Post by wizzwizz4 »

awesomeideas wrote: post #58
debacle wrote: post #2

"The common meaning of a little used word changed nearly 100 years ago." ...

You were around in the time of Shakespeare!? Wow, what was it like back then, hearing the Bard himself use the singular they? https://archive.is/A8h4J >

My current favourite instance of singular 'they' is in the KJV translation of the Book of Job – specifically, the end of chapter 15. The authors used generic 'he' throughout, until they got to a bit they'd have to translate as "his womb". Clearly this was a wee bit radical of a concept for the authors, because they chose instead to write "their belly prepareth deceit".

Also, since it's a religious text, this is a slam dunk counterexample for (e.g.) prescriptivist Mormons. Anyone can handwave Shakespeare, but the Inspired Word of God? They have to admit that singular 'they' is grammatical.

Post reply on HN