OT: Words / vocabulary you butcher in spelling / pronunciation / meaning for years

[Chainshot]

Answer: almost all of them!

 

[Buffaloed]

If you type the word literally into the search box and search this forum the massive failure of education is overwhelming. Then you can identify by username and do a word search on that. How do we save these lost minds? Can we do interventions? Revival meetings?

 

[dotcommunism]

I know people object to "literally" as an intensifier, but all sorts of other words have historically gone through the exact same shift. Think about "really" or "very", does anyone object to those words to being used as intensifiers, because they also originally meant that something was real or true. Also "literally" as an intensifier has a history going back centuries. This isn't a battle the prescriptivists are going to win.

 

[Buff15Sabres]

Here are a few:

2. I always thought and used the term nonplussed to mean unfazed or unimpressed, only to find out that it really means unsure, bewildered etc. I've since heard plenty of people using the term in the way I initially understood it, so I think that one might be evolving.

WOW. I always thought nonplussed meant unfazed as well. It does look like it is evolving....

adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react.
   "he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea"
   

   synonyms:

   confused, bewildered, bemused, puzzled, perplexed, baffled, stumped, mystified, stupefied, muddled, befuddled, fuddled, dumbfounded, at sea, at a loss, at sixes and sevens, thrown (off balance), taken aback, disoriented, disconcerted, discomposed, troubled, discomfited, unnerved, shaken, shaken up, dazed, stunned, surprised, astonished, astounded; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]
2. 2.
   INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
   (of a person) not disconcerted; unperturbed.

To add a few

1. Dearth (thanks to The League)
2. People that say "I could care less" when they "couldn't" care less.
3. For all intensive purposes

 

[Montag DP]

I know people object to "literally" as an intensifier, but all sorts of other words have historically gone through the exact same shift. Think about "really" or "very", does anyone object to those words to being used as intensifiers, because they also originally meant that something was real or true. Also "literally" as an intensifier has a history going back centuries. This isn't a battle the prescriptivists are going to win.

I really don't think that's a very good way to look at this.

 

[Buffaloed]

I know people object to "literally" as an intensifier, but all sorts of other words have historically gone through the exact same shift. Think about "really" or "very", does anyone object to those words to being used as intensifiers, because they also originally meant that something was real or true. Also "literally" as an intensifier has a history going back centuries. This isn't a battle the prescriptivists are going to win.

The objective isn't to win. It's to slow the the evolution of language so words retain a common meaning so people can communicate.

20 words that once meant something very different
There's some words frequently on our forum here:
Fathom: It can be hard to fathom how this verb moved from meaning “to encircle with one’s arms” to meaning “to understand after much thought.” Here’s the scoop: One’s outstretched arms can be used as a measurement (a fathom), and once you have fathoms, you can use a fathom line to measure the depth of water. Think metaphorically and fathoming becomes about getting to the bottom of things.
Myriad: If you had a myriad of things 600 years ago, it meant that you specifically had 10,000 of them — not just a lot.
Egregious: It used to be possible for it to be a good thing to be egregious: it meant you were distinguished or eminent. But in the end, the negative meaning of the word won out, and now it means that someone or something is conspicuously bad — not conspicuously good.

 

[DJN21]

I was about 28 before I realized it isn't "for all intensive purposes"

 

[Buffaloed]

I was about 28 before I realized it isn't "for all intensive purposes"

It's like that CCR song There's a Bathroom Bad Moon on the Right Rise.

I could not accept the proof is in the pudding so I used to say the proof is in the putting because it made more sense to me. Can't see the forest for the trees is another one. Why isn't it Can't see the forest through the trees?

 

[Montag DP]

I could not accept the proof is in the pudding so I used to say the proof is in the putting because it made more sense to me. Can't see the forest for the trees is another one. Why isn't it Can't see the forest through the trees?

It's because "for" means "because of" in this case.

 

[dotcommunism]

The objective isn't to win. It's to slow the the evolution of language so words retain a common meaning so people can communicate.

And the "literal" meaning of "literally" isn't going away, is it? When people use it as an intensifier as opposed to in the more traditional sense, is it unclear what was meant?

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

I know people object to "literally" as an intensifier, but all sorts of other words have historically gone through the exact same shift. Think about "really" or "very", does anyone object to those words to being used as intensifiers, because they also originally meant that something was real or true. Also "literally" as an intensifier has a history going back centuries. This isn't a battle the prescriptivists are going to win.

Yeah, but "literally" already has a meaning and so the evolution confuses it in this case. I get your argument, but that's one I'd argue people should just learn, cause this change just ignores and eliminates what the word is actually intended to mean. We have intensifiers already, save literal for real situations.

I am fine with the change in "viral" though- it's clear whether it refers to a disease or online popularity, it can serve both situations, it's fine.

Had an interesting one with a buddy- "feminism" is technically defined as the belief that men and women should have equal rights. That's it. By that definition, most of us are feminists. When my buddy uses it he's referring to bra-burning hippies, but that's not what that word means. Plenty of people misuse it, there's an argument the word has evolved- but I'll continue to be that guy saying "no, it means equality, buy a dictionary, if you aren't a feminist you're trash."

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

And the "literal" meaning of "literally" isn't going away, is it? When people use it as an intensifier as opposed to in the more traditional sense, is it unclear what was meant?

It can be. A coworker called a guy "literally Pejorative Slured." Now, there's the whole debate about using the r-word, I think that given the word's evolution such language is offensive and shouldn't be used, but irregardless- I was confused as to whether the guy actually had a mental handicap. He did not.















Also, did I get anyone with irregardless? I hope I did.

 

[Buffaloed]

And the "literal" meaning of "literally" isn't going away, is it? When people use it as an intensifier as opposed to in the more traditional sense, is it unclear what was meant?

It's clear if it used as an intensifier. No where in my post did I say it wasn't. But it's frequently used in contexts where no additional emphasis is required or appropriate and the circumstance being referred to didn't actually happen. It is not being used as an intensifier or referring to something in a strict or literal sense. It has become a meaningless a gap-filler like "you know" and "obviously". By the way I objected to the use of the word literally when people really mean figuratively. You're literally misrepresenting what I wrote.

 

[dotcommunism]

Yeah, but "literally" already has a meaning and so the evolution confuses it in this case. I get your argument, but that's one I'd argue people should just learn, cause this change just ignores and eliminates what the word is actually intended to mean. We have intensifiers already, save literal for real situations.

Many words have multiple meanings. "Literally" is one of them, at least as it has been used for literally hundreds of years.

It's clear if it used as an intensifier. No where in my post did I say it wasn't. But it's frequently used in contexts where no additional emphasis is required or appropriate and the circumstance being referred to didn't actually happen. It is not being used as an intensifier or referring to something in a strict or literal sense. It has become a meaningless a gap-filler like "you know" and "obviously". By the way I objected to the use of the word literally when people really mean figuratively. You're literally misrepresenting what I wrote.

Many modifiers are used when they are not necessary. Regardless, to my knowledge no one uses the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively". Most of those sentences that people object to are using "literally" as an intensifier to turn a metaphor into a more hyperbolic one. Using "literally" as part of a figure of speech, that is using the word "literally" quite figuratively, does not mean that they would be correct to use the word "figuratively" instead. If someone says, for example, that one hockey team "literally destroyed" another team, they do not mean that they "figuratively destroyed" them, they mean that they "very much destroyed" them. "Literally" is still serving as an intensifier, it is simply being used to intensify a metaphor (which is, of course, not itself literal).

 

[Dreakon13]

I always have to take a step back and try to remember if its for all "intensive purposes" or "intents and purposes".

I'll sometimes try and use the word "truancy" to mean accuracy/completedness... which definitely isn't what it means based on a simple lookup of the definition. For example, "I went over my work again for the sake of truancy". I think my definition sounds better than the actual one, and I don't want to give it up just because I'm completely wrong.

 

[Howie Hodge]

Cool Hwip.........

 

[brian_griffin]

Is separate on your list?

I did that on purpose to see who would catch it. No surprise it was you.

I know people object to "literally" as an intensifier, but all sorts of other words have historically gone through the exact same shift. Think about "really" or "very", does anyone object to those words to being used as intensifiers, because they also originally meant that something was real or true. Also "literally" as an intensifier has a history going back centuries. This isn't a battle the prescriptivists are going to win.

Verily means truly. I never knew very meant, or once meant, true.

Cool Hwip.........

View attachment 232595

Stewie, is that you?


One might say the dearth of grammar, vocabulary, and spelling education in the United States is "unprecedented" u n p r e c e d e n t e d, for all but perhaps eight students.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Many words have multiple meanings. "Literally" is one of them, at least as it has been used for literally hundreds of years.


Many modifiers are used when they are not necessary. Regardless, to my knowledge no one uses the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively". Most of those sentences that people object to are using "literally" as an intensifier to turn a metaphor into a more hyperbolic one. Using "literally" as part of a figure of speech, that is using the word "literally" quite figuratively, does not mean that they would be correct to use the word "figuratively" instead. If someone says, for example, that one hockey team "literally destroyed" another team, they do not mean that they "figuratively destroyed" them, they mean that they "very much destroyed" them. "Literally" is still serving as an intensifier, it is simply being used to intensify a metaphor (which is, of course, not itself literal).

Other words are more malleable in their usage- "literal" has a very specific usage that gets effed once we start using it as an intensifier. I don't really care, we have bigger issues in society, but claiming that literal has multiple meanings- just because people are wrong doesn't make the usage acceptable. Words evolve and are used differently, I get that, but in this case it's like if enough people called dogs "cats"- like, no, that just confuses things. Seriously mate, had a coworker mock a guy for being "literally reetarted" and I got mad at her for it. Then she explains "no, I just mean he's dumb" and the irony literally killed me. Trust me on this, I was literally an English major.

..now was I an English major or not? Obviously it takes two seconds to clear this crap up, but it's just so unnecessary. We have "very" "so" "extremely" etc.- misusing literally just indicates a lack of nuanced thinking to me. Similar to "could care less."

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

I am actually literally an English as a second language teacher, and I'm always embarrassed by my inability to spell "embarrassed." "Separate" also gives me issues. I used to say "itineration" instead of "iteration"- no idea where that one came from.

Oh, and I remember some mild embarrassment in high school when I read "antithesis" as "anti-thesis." Meh, I maintain that pronunciation makes more sense.

 

[kirby11]

WOW. I always thought nonplussed meant unfazed as well. It does look like it is evolving....

adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person) surprised and confused so much that they are unsure how to react.
   "he would be completely nonplussed and embarrassed at the idea"
   

   synonyms:

   confused, bewildered, bemused, puzzled, perplexed, baffled, stumped, mystified, stupefied, muddled, befuddled, fuddled, dumbfounded, at sea, at a loss, at sixes and sevens, thrown (off balance), taken aback, disoriented, disconcerted, discomposed, troubled, discomfited, unnerved, shaken, shaken up, dazed, stunned, surprised, astonished, astounded; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]
2. 2.
   INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
   (of a person) not disconcerted; unperturbed.

To add a few

1. Dearth (thanks to The League)
2. People that say "I could care less" when they "couldn't" care less.
3. For all intensive purposes

Nonplussed is an auto-antonym, so it has two correct but seemingly contradictory meanings.

 

[JThorne]

3. I'm not sure if this technically qualifies as vocabulary, but there's a model I use as a reference point as part of a lecture on a topic where one of the authors' last names was Wesley. I gave versions of that lecture on at least a couple dozen occasions, put together a published chapter (and least one revised version for a newer edition) where I cited and wrote about it, and created/commissioned diagrams to accompany it, and never gave the name a second thought until a very earnestly concerned, but unfailingly polite non-traditional student (who honestly reminded me a lot of my mom) in a summer class asked me very insistently if I was completely sure about the reference. Turns out the person's name is actually Westley.

4. My ten year old daughter is a bit of gamer and we play some games together either cooperatively or giving each other couch commentary while the other is playing. Right now we're mainly playing through Stardew Valley. A couple weeks ago we were playing and she starts talking about her inven-tree. Among the things you can do in the game are planting/harvesting trees and also crafting/devices gadgets, so I thought this was some kind of special thing in the game I hadn't gotten to yet. Turns out she just watched a youtube stream from someone in the UK and that is just the British pronunciation of inventory. After figuring it out together and pointing out the correction, she opted to fully embrace the UK style of saying it, mainly because it mildly annoys me. She has since managed to work the term and annoying pronunciation into conversation at least once a day--Daddy, our inventree of lunch stuff is low, her sister's toybox needs more inventree space, etc. It's honestly a little impressive.

To point 3, The Dread Pirate Roberts is originally called WESTLEY, just like your author. Though I keep hearing it Wesley. I wasn't aware of this until many years after the movie had been in circulation.
To point 4, I learned a handful of years back that while the British pronounce Aluminum differently, it isn't a dialect only reason. They spell it differently. aluminIum. There's an extra "I" in there towards the end. Until I discovered this was the case, I just assumed the British were being their typical weird selves with language.

that's a seperate issue, because I think he meant calendar.

Damn, Buffaloed got me.

One of the most rampant offenses I see on this board is Dominate vs Dominant. Typically, when the error happens, it is because the person thinks the former means the latter. This problem is getting worse. (SORRY PAXON, I DON'T HAVE PROOF OF THIS! )

There is one misuse of a word(phrase) that has been bothering me since I first learned of the proper word to use in place of the offending word(phrase).

I don't like it. -- This just means you have no like for it. NOT THAT YOU ARE NEGATIVE
I dislike it. -- This means you are negative towards it.

These two are not interchangeable. The misuse of them has brought them to mean so now, because of evolving language. But logically, what I've explained is the way to use the words.
We are not born to like or dislike something. We're born neutral on everything we've never experienced in any form. If I am offered to attend a game of Cricket in person and someone asks me if I like being there in person, "I don't (dis)like it." You can't have an opinion yet. You might THINK you'd like it. You're neutral to the point you no longer are. Let me restate that for emphasis.

You are neutral to things you've yet to encounter/experience.

Until then, you're just guessing, wishing, etc.


OH! That leads me to end with an abbreviation I just typed. ETC is short for Et Cetera. ECT is not. Again, ECT IS NOT SHORT FOR ET CETERA.

 

[brian_griffin]

One of the most rampant offenses I see on this board is Dominate vs Dominant. Typically, when the error happens, it is because the person thinks the former means the latter.

I work in a technical field. I see the same thing with people - many with advanced degrees - using the verb contaminate in place of the noun contaminant in technical reports and presentations to management.

"We analyzed the contaminates in the product." (Incorrect)

Anyone who screens his/her reports / presentations with me gets that error corrected.

Also, this, that, these, those are adjectives and not nouns and therefore cannot be used in place of the noun. This problem must be corrected. That misuse often goes overlooked.

 

[dotcommunism]

Verily means truly. I never knew very meant, or once meant, true.

Per Merriam-Webster the earliest documented uses of very in English back in the 12th and 13th centuries are used to mean true. The word also ultimately* derives from the Latin vērus (as does verily, for that matter)

*That is, as ultimately as we can get without going into reconstructed proto-languages.

Other words are more malleable in their usage- "literal" has a very specific usage that gets effed once we start using it as an intensifier. I don't really care, we have bigger issues in society, but claiming that literal has multiple meanings- just because people are wrong doesn't make the usage acceptable. Words evolve and are used differently, I get that, but in this case it's like if enough people called dogs "cats"- like, no, that just confuses things. Seriously mate, had a coworker mock a guy for being "literally reetarted" and I got mad at her for it. Then she explains "no, I just mean he's dumb" and the irony literally killed me. Trust me on this, I was literally an English major.

..now was I an English major or not? Obviously it takes two seconds to clear this crap up, but it's just so unnecessary. We have "very" "so" "extremely" etc.- misusing literally just indicates a lack of nuanced thinking to me. Similar to "could care less."

The issue fundamentally, though, is that it is not a misuse. You may not like the usage, and clearly you don't, but that does not make it wrong. It has been used that way for centuries. Pretty much every, if not every, dictionary lists its use as an intensifier, even for figurative statements. Merriam-Webster cites its first known usage as from the 15th century. If you were to look around online, you could find citations of "literally" being used to modify figurative statements dating back to the 17th century. It was a common usage by the 19th century, and was added to the OED in the early 20th century. It's not a case where the word is changing and evolving, the word has changed and evolved and it has done so long before any of the people arguing about it now were ever born.

And the issue with your co-worker isn't that she used literally, it's that she was an asshole. She would have been an asshole regardless of whether or not she used the word literally.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Per Merriam-Webster the earliest documented uses of very in English back in the 12th and 13th centuries are used to mean true. The word also ultimately* derives from the Latin vērus (as does verily, for that matter)

*That is, as ultimately as we can get without going into reconstructed proto-languages.


The issue fundamentally, though, is that it is not a misuse. You may not like the usage, and clearly you don't, but that does not make it wrong. It has been used that way for centuries. Pretty much every, if not every, dictionary lists its use as an intensifier, even for figurative statements. Merriam-Webster cites its first known usage as from the 15th century. If you were to look around online, you could find citations of "literally" being used to modify figurative statements dating back to the 17th century. It was a common usage by the 19th century, and was added to the OED in the early 20th century. It's not a case where the word is changing and evolving, the word has changed and evolved and it has done so long before any of the people arguing about it now were ever born.

And the issue with your co-worker isn't that she used literally, it's that she was an *******. She would have been an ******* regardless of whether or not she used the word literally.

Damn, you put your work in! Fair enough, I'm seeing plenty of secondary definitions and "informal" usages listing it as an intensifier. Still think it's dumb, but your point is taken- it's been done long enough that it's accepted usage nowadays.

And ya the bigger issue is my coworker's insensitivity, but the "literally" actually did cause extra confusion in that situation. That said, one example from 29 years of life..

On a completely different note- anyone else hate its vs. it's?

The dog's bone. Its bone. Because it's his bone. I still google this crap every 6 months or so- just weird how it breaks the rules of possessive language.

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

To point 3, The Dread Pirate Roberts is originally called WESTLEY, just like your author. Though I keep hearing it Wesley. I wasn't aware of this until many years after the movie had been in circulation.
To point 4, I learned a handful of years back that while the British pronounce Aluminum differently, it isn't a dialect only reason. They spell it differently. aluminIum. There's an extra "I" in there towards the end. Until I discovered this was the case, I just assumed the British were being their typical weird selves with language.



Damn, Buffaloed got me.

One of the most rampant offenses I see on this board is Dominate vs Dominant. Typically, when the error happens, it is because the person thinks the former means the latter. This problem is getting worse. (SORRY PAXON, I DON'T HAVE PROOF OF THIS! )

There is one misuse of a word(phrase) that has been bothering me since I first learned of the proper word to use in place of the offending word(phrase).

I don't like it. -- This just means you have no like for it. NOT THAT YOU ARE NEGATIVE
I dislike it. -- This means you are negative towards it.

These two are not interchangeable. The misuse of them has brought them to mean so now, because of evolving language. But logically, what I've explained is the way to use the words.
We are not born to like or dislike something. We're born neutral on everything we've never experienced in any form. If I am offered to attend a game of Cricket in person and someone asks me if I like being there in person, "I don't (dis)like it." You can't have an opinion yet. You might THINK you'd like it. You're neutral to the point you no longer are. Let me restate that for emphasis.

You are neutral to things you've yet to encounter/experience.

Until then, you're just guessing, wishing, etc.


OH! That leads me to end with an abbreviation I just typed. ETC is short for Et Cetera. ECT is not. Again, ECT IS NOT SHORT FOR ET CETERA.

Interesting about don't like vs. dislike- never really thought about it, but there are plenty of times I wish I could simply not like a thing. "Neutral" feels kinda different- feels like I'm mixed, there's good and bad. Nope, I just don't like Connor Sheary's hockey, for instance. I don't dislike it, I'll save that for Sobotka and Scandella, but seeing Sheary out there just means nothing to me. It's a good difference to have for movies, books, people. I'm not a huge movie person nor am I all that social- I just don't like people sometimes. Doesn't mean I dislike them, I just don't always enjoy being social.