Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are literally nonplussed.
A+
A-plussed?
What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
161–170 of 337 posts
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#162First 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?
Some men just want to watch the dictionary burn
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#163Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#164On 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…
That's a really interesting observation.
Notably, it's only the noun plural that becomes "-eez" ("these processes"), while the verb present tense remains "-iz" ("she processes his application").
It seems to be going along with the gradual adoption of "often" with a "t" sound -- "off-tuhn" instead of "off-uhn".
Nobody said it with a "t" when and where I grew up (or on TV that I remember), because obviously the second syllable of "often" was the same as in "soften", "moisten", "hasten", "fasten", "glisten", and so forth. All silent t's.
But now it's at the point where probably a majority of people I hear on television and podcasts, as well as in my personal life, pronounce the "t". But only in "often" -- not in a single one of the other words I listed.
Both "often" and "processes" seem to fall in the category of hypercorrection, where people are trying to sound more correct.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#165Fascinating. I am only familiar with this definition of the word! To me, "nonplussed" has always meant "unimpressed, indifferent", adjacent (but not quite identical) in meaning to "nonchalant".
I love watching language evolve before my very eyes, it's literally the coolest thing ever!
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate. > I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way. > I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd hav…
One of these is not like the others. Toward as the opposite of untoward appears in shakespeare
"kempt" as well. So I don't think the purpose is to only use words that don't actually exist, but where the negative is much more common.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kempt
Google Books Ngram Viewer for kempt vs unkempt: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=kempt%2C+unkem...
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#167Merriam-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'…
> you can't be gruntled.
Why? It's a perfectly cromulent word: https://comb.io/tVAKjq
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#168I thought this word meant "bothered" in the 1984 sense of plus=good i dont think ive ever seen the definition prior
Yes, I also took it as wordplay on Doublespeak that found its way into casual slang.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#169"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 >
The antiquity of 'they' as the indefinite singular is well established. "If you do ever figure out whose umbrella this is, do give it back to them, will you?" has always been correct when the identity of the individual (and therefore particulars such as gender) is unknown.
As a definite singular, one used to refer to a known person who relates to gender in a specific way, it is rather new. I have no beef whatsoever with this particular linguistic innovation, but let's not pretend that it isn't one.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ha…
> One does things like this because one is afraid of being assailed by pedants and made to feel inferior. Do you pronounce "tortoise" like "bourgeoise" because you don't want to sound inferior? I jest, but it's like your argument is making my case for me. Replace "snob" with "pedant" to see what I mean.
I enjoy intentionally mispronouncing words to my fiancee, and this one is definitely going into the rotation, so thank you for that! (Now, to figure out how to get "tortoise" into casual conversation.)