I just never use the word, and tell others not to use it as well. There are synonyms for whatever you’re trying to say, just use those.
What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
181–190 of 337 posts
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#182Bemused ( 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)
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
… I’m entirely nonplussed by your use of ‘skunked’.
What’s awesome about words is we can just say whatever bullshit we want and if anyone understands and repeats it, bam, new words! They don’t start off in the dictionary!
I love "anon" for that reason.
"I will be there anon!"
If anyone complains about me being there either too early or too late, or neither, I point them to the dictionary:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anon
It can either mean "now", "soon", or "later".
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#184Words 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…
It’s almost certain that the meaning of some words does evolve by mistake, and “nonplussed” may be an example of that. We learn the meaning of many words purely from context, and for some words, the typical contexts they appear in lend themselves to misinterpretation, in combination with what their linguistic form inherently suggests (like the “non-“ in “nonplussed”). When sufficiently repeated with the mistaken meaning, that new meaning is likely to become established.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#185Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#186Hearing the word nonplussed always reminds me of this scene in Archer, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kCwpregWfKc
That's the only time I can recall ever encountering the word in the wild. I've probably seen it in passing, in a newspaper column or a novel, but Archer is the only reference I distinctly remember. It's not a widely-known or widely-used word.
I never hear it in conversation or presentations or anything like that, but have encountered it reasonably often in novels.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#187Merriam-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'…
> This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can't rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage. I feel like you're being sent a strong signal about what "correct" means re usage but refusing to heed it. Dictionaries aren't descriptivist because of an idealogical commitment or whatever; a strictly prescriptivist stance is simply not very useful for achieving the goals that a dictio…
> simply not very useful for achieving the goals that a dictionary has.
Apparently the dictionary's goals are not the same as my goals. Sure, I want to know about incorrect usages; but I also want to know that those usages are incorrect.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#188Bemused ( 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…
Don't forget "could care less", which is profoundly stupid as the literal meaning of the words tells one that they are using the phrase wrong.
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#189I 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 have never known it to mean anything except for "perplexed", as a hiberno-English speaker. But now that I do know the newer meaning I'm both mildly nonplussed and totally nonplussed about it.
[deleted]
Re: What's Going on with ‘Nonplussed’? (2017)
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> 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.