I feel less bad about “misusing” this word now (I had thought it meant indifferent instead of confused)
What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
261–270 of 337 posts
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#262As a non native English speaker, nonplus is among the words and phases I try my best not to use. The others include biweekly, next Tuesday, twelve o'clock, etc.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#263Bemused ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/can-bemuse-mean-amus... ) is another word that is often understood "incorrectly".
A list of ones I've seen in this thread or know of already: * Nonplussed (miffed) * Ambivalent (conflicted) * Factoid (incorrect statement) * Bemused (confused) * Peruse (read thoroughly) * Travesty (distortion) * Transpire (to be revealed) * Literally (in actual fact) There's also "beg the question" which is often used to mean "naturally give rise to the question" but I believe originally meant "assumes the answer w…
The modern colloquial usage of "begs the question" bugs the heck out of me. I try not to get too pedantic about language usage, but that one just sticks in my craw. I think because it's actually quite useful to understand when one is begging the question, and it feels a disservice to water down the phrase.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#264Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no objection to avoiding assumptions about a person's gender. It's unfortunate in my opinion that we chose "they" which is gender-neutral but also plural. That is entirely where the issue is for me. I'd have no objection to a singular gender-neutral word (which unfortunately doesn't exist in English). "One" sometimes works, but often sounds too formal. Or reworking the sentence so that "they" is approprate, e.…
> I'd have no objection to a singular gender-neutral word (which unfortunately doesn't exist in English). Yes it does. "He" is the gender neutral expression in English and has been since forever. It's just that politically correct people get bent out of shape about it.
It so weird that ships and boats somehow are female and are referred to using the word "she", when neutral gender "it" exists.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#266Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#267As a Brit, I don't think I've ever encountered the latter meaning. I've only ever heard it to mean 'perplexed'.
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".
> because over here it feels like an exotic word that people only pull out to be semi-fancy, like "whom".
Them's fightin' words. 'Whom' is super useful because it is grammatically necessary.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know why it is; I know that language changes, and I know that one task of lexicographers is to record those changes. But I don't think they should give the same status to a usage that is just a decade old, and restricted to casual chit-chat among teenagers, as one would accord to a usage that is established over centuries. According to TFA, "nonplussed" is from Latin "non plus" (no more), and it doesn't seem to hav…
I had to check m-w's entry for "literally". While they do include a sense 2 that is similar to "figuratively", there is a substantial note afterwards and an FAQ that does a great job of explaining the status of the two senses and a touch of their history. They give some facts that contradict your above, as well (related to the timeline, as well as what constitutes slang). In case you're interested: https://www.merria…
I don't want my granddaughters never learning the meaning of "figuratively" because it's fallen out of use, having been replaced by "literally".
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#269I 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.
That's how we learn 95% of words' meanings: by osmosis from hearing them used by others whom we presume know their proper meanings. I doubt you've done 100,000 dictionary look-ups, or any number remotely in the ballpark of the number of English words you know.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#270Merriam-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'…
> "Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can't be gruntled.
And this is we end up with words like 'combobulate'.