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

101–110 of 337 posts

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

#101

Post by DanielVZ »

beretguy wrote: post #51
andycowley wrote: post #15

As a Brit, I don't think I've ever encountered the latter meaning. I've only ever heard it to mean 'perplexed'.

As a non native English speaker, it’s my first time seeing or hearing this word.

As a non native its always fun to learn new vocab. A few months ago I heard the word Vicariously for like the second or third time, and when I looked at the definition it was interestingly both complex and very human at the same time:

experienced or realized through imaginative or sympathetic participation in the experience of another.

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

#102

Post by DFHippie »

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…

> Unless - IMO - you want to sound like a snob...

Really? I think it's the opposite. One does things like this because one is afraid of being assailed by pedants and made to feel inferior. This is why, I think, I hear people, mostly British, say things like "to so-and-so and I". They're afraid to use the wrong form or the pronoun and be scolded, so they overcorrect.

And about this:

> in general language evolves to have simpler rules with fewer exceptions rather than the other way around.

I don't think that's generally true. Rather, language changes in many ways, but one of them is the accumulation of exceptions to a formerly simple system. This gives us the complex paradigms of "be" and "go", for example.

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

#103

Post by Angostura »

andycowley wrote: post #15

As a Brit, I don't think I've ever encountered the latter meaning. I've only ever heard it to mean 'perplexed'.

As another Brit, I too have only ever used it to mean perplexed.

But frequently I’ve seen it used in the context of perplexed about the fuss - which I guess has contributed to the newer meaning

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

#105

Post by rjmill »

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 using it "wrong." The article does a good job of finding examples where the author's intent was clear. But it's nigh impossible to figure out the intent in most cases. It's fascinating how so many different interpretations can thrive, while not being important enough to correct in most cases.

In my head, "nonplussed" is equivalent to a blank stare. The described person is either not paying attention, or the situation went completely over their head.

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

#106

Post by ilitirit »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #93
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… :-)

I not sure what you're talking about. I'm referring to things where pronunciation is generally based on the etymology. I don't think the word "adjective" falls into this category. One could perhaps make a case for aluminum vs aluminium (cf: platinum), but those are pretty much different words that refer to the same thing.

"Process-eez" is the same word as "processes" with a pronunciation based on a misunderstanding (presumably) of the etymological "rules".

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

#109

Post by SoftTalker »

causality0 wrote: post #32
SoftTalker wrote: post #16

I've pretty much given up on trying to fight the evolution in the meaning of words. Singular "they" was one I resisted for a long time, but it's a lost cause. It still trips me up to hear it or especially to read it: what? did another person suddenly enter this context? I still avoid it myself, and think its use reduces clarity, but it is what it is. Word usage changes, evolves. A word or a different meaning of a wor…

Singular "they" was one I resisted for a long time, but it's a lost cause. I've had almost the opposite experience from you. I'd long embraced it as the correct word to use when referring to a person of unknown gender or to a hypothetical individual, but having to use it regarding real people caused me problems. When my wife became coworkers with a non-binary person and its usage came up every few days, the better I…

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.g. "Each person should do it for themselves" isn't terrible, and not too confusing, but better is either "People should do it for themselves" or "One should do it for oneself." The worst is something like "The manager decided that they should do it for themselves" which I see a lot, especially recently. Who is "they" referring to here? The manager? Some other group? It's confusing.

Yes I know that singular "they" has existed for a long time but nobody apparently told my English teachers who would circle it in red every time I accidentally used it.

Post reply on HN