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

271–280 of 337 posts

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

#271

Post by vundercind »

Spivak wrote: post #199
vundercind wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Mostly the former, from what I can tell. People hear a “fancy” word, misunderstand it based on limited context, begin to use it where a less-fancy word would do (for whatever reason), and before long one cannot use the word in the original sense without being misunderstoo…

Except nonplussed isn't a fancy word with pedigree, it's something that you would assume originated in 1984 as one of the words in the simplified language for proles.

It looks and sounds vaguely French-derived (even if it isn’t) but doesn’t end in -ment. That puts it in the “fancy” category for a lot of folks.

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

#272

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

mnw21cam wrote: post #154
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 think it should join "billion" in never being ever used again due to its ambiguity.

How is "billion" ambiguous?

Does it mean something other than 1,000,000,000?

EDIT: Apparently in some cultures, it means a million million, ie, 1,000,000,000,000, or what most people would call "trillion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

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

#273

Post by bazoom42 »

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.

How did you learn your first language? Most people learn to speak before they learn to read and use a dictionary.

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

#274

Post by barryrandall »

Gimpei wrote: post #259

I don’t normally care about meaning shifts as it’s part of language evolving. But nonplussed really does bother me, as the new meaning is the opposite of the original meaning. So I often have no idea what people mean when they use the word. Is it so hard to use a dictionary? All you have to do is click on the word.

It's apparently so hard to use a dictionary that people accidentally created a new meaning for a word.

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

#275

Post by paulddraper »

foobarian wrote: post #69
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?

Explaining the joke:

"Begging the question" is an expression that properly means "assuming the conclusion," i.e. circular reasoning.

However, the comment above deliberately uses the incorrect meaning "raising the question."

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

#276

Post by dekervin »

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 have a pet theory that words in a language obey to both an etymological logic and a "poetic" logic. Sometimes the two don't coincide and the accepted meaning of the word drift toward the poetic imagery.

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

#277

Post by paulddraper »

Gimpei wrote: post #259

I don’t normally care about meaning shifts as it’s part of language evolving. But nonplussed really does bother me, as the new meaning is the opposite of the original meaning. So I often have no idea what people mean when they use the word. Is it so hard to use a dictionary? All you have to do is click on the word.

> the new meaning is the opposite of the original meaning

From a certain point of view. Or:

The original meaning is a negative reaction.

The new meaning is a neutral reaction.

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

#279

Post by paulddraper »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #272
mnw21cam wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should join "billion" in never being ever used again due to its ambiguity.

How is "billion" ambiguous? Does it mean something other than 1,000,000,000? EDIT: Apparently in some cultures, it means a million million, ie, 1,000,000,000,000, or what most people would call "trillion". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

For the last several decades, every English speaking country has used the short billion (1e9).

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

#280

Post by jamiek88 »

Terr_ wrote: post #213
ajmurmann wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 origi…

> Supposedly this has happened with "literally". Allegedly also with "factoid", which means "something which resembles a fact" versus the misuse of "a small fact". It's frustrating because it's like watching people declare that aster-oids are actual stars , except smaller. Or that human-oids and andr-oids are small people.

Finally! Finally I’ve found a fellow factoid correct / original meaning aficionado!

I ceased to die on the hill but it still makes me twitch.

Post reply on HN