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

131–140 of 337 posts

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

#131

Post by gms7777 »

tremon wrote: post #130
rjmill wrote: post #105

I knew it! Context clues typically imply the ("wrong") meaning, so I misinterpreted this word for a while until I used it out loud, and my pedantic family corrected me. But so many usages of the word are vague, and the difference between "perplexed" and "ambivalent" is not super important in most stories. (Whoever is nonplussed is not likely to take action on the situation.) I had a feeling that some authors were usi…

Funny. In my head, nonplussed was near-synonymous with unimpressed. So in my interpretation they were neither not paying attention, nor in over their head -- but the blank stare remains nonetheless. That still closer to your interpretation than "baffled, perplexed" as it apparently originally meant.

I always read it as meaning something like "unfazed" before seeing someone get corrected on it.

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

#132

Post by cbolton »

The article is super confusing. The anecdote about the drifting meaning of "nonplussed" is interesting, but the way it's framed as an example of mistake related to prefixes just doesn't make sense.

I mean they don't give any evidence of a connection between the "wrong" usage of nonplussed and the "wrong" understanding of "non"?

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

#133

Post by parpfish »

elicash wrote: post #29
jtbayly wrote: post #8

I think I've always assumed it meant "unimpressed." That is not the "new" meaning under discussion, but they seem to hint at it when they say, "This new sense appears to stem from a mistaken belief that the first three letters of nonplus are there to indicate that someone is something other than “plussed” (although what being plussed would entail here remains a mystery)." I bet my meaning is the next change to this s…

I am excited to start slipping "plussed" casually into conversation.

You should be thankful your coworkers don’t already say that the “plus one” an idea/comment

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

#134

Post by tremon »

adamc wrote: post #111
jtbayly wrote: post #8

I think I've always assumed it meant "unimpressed." That is not the "new" meaning under discussion, but they seem to hint at it when they say, "This new sense appears to stem from a mistaken belief that the first three letters of nonplus are there to indicate that someone is something other than “plussed” (although what being plussed would entail here remains a mystery)." I bet my meaning is the next change to this s…

I admit to not understanding why people assume meanings rather than look them up.

So... you're nonplussed about why people would pick up new words from casual usage rather than from books?

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

#136

Post by GrantMoyer »

zarzavat wrote: post #84
kibwen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I assume without evidence that it's way more common in British English, because over here it feels like an exotic word that people only pull out to be semi-fancy, like "whom".

Wait… do Americans not say whom?

The Americans who know when to use whom and who and Americans who think they know when to use whom and who are those who use whom, while Americans whom the distiction between who and whom thouroughly confuses and Americans to whom whom is entirely unknown are those by whom who is solely used.

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

#137

Post by dylan604 »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #123
jonhohle wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Begging the question, he will continue to do nothing.

Irregardless of begging, they should of been less of a lose cannon with they’re word’s

I feel like I've been hit by a lose cannon all my life.

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

#138

Post by impendia »

zarzavat wrote: post #84
kibwen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I assume without evidence that it's way more common in British English, because over here it feels like an exotic word that people only pull out to be semi-fancy, like "whom".

Wait… do Americans not say whom?

Not much.

Americans use "whom" some, especially in formal writing and/or speech, but colloquially "who" is much more common.

For example, as an American a sentence like "Whom did you invite to the party?" sounds a bit stilted and formal to me.

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

#139

Post by [deleted] »

elicash wrote: post #29
jtbayly wrote: post #8

I think I've always assumed it meant "unimpressed." That is not the "new" meaning under discussion, but they seem to hint at it when they say, "This new sense appears to stem from a mistaken belief that the first three letters of nonplus are there to indicate that someone is something other than “plussed” (although what being plussed would entail here remains a mystery)." I bet my meaning is the next change to this s…

I am excited to start slipping "plussed" casually into conversation.

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by ignormies »

> This new sense appears to stem from a mistaken belief that the first three letters of nonplus are there to indicate that someone is something other than “plussed” (although what being plussed would entail here remains a mystery)

This is what's called a "lost positive". Rob Words on YouTube has a pretty good video on this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7TfjCIbtng

Post reply on HN