It does but it has also been used to mean uninterested for hundreds of years.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Humour] The continued drop in English language standards.
- Thread starter narly101
- Start date
It does but it has also been used to mean uninterested for hundreds of years.
Canfan
Active member
Using the word fun as an adjective instead of a noun annoys me.
"It was so fun" instead of "It was so much fun", seems wrong but now seems to be commonplace.
"It was so fun" instead of "It was so much fun", seems wrong but now seems to be commonplace.
Me and my Monkey
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2015
- 3,361
Marvellous stuff. And I rest my case, yeronner.
schmunk
"Members"
This is a logic failure on your part - it's not what "almost always" means.
That reads like a post from the Fridat night drinking thread.
GT49er
Well-known member
Yep, Colin Browning definitely the (rather illiterate) idiot.
GT49er
Well-known member
Nobody except a thick idiot would ever say 'a bit always', or 'a bit never'. Almost always or almost never are perfectly satisfactory though.
Last edited:
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,199
Most words have multiple meanings, but then most have a primary one too that effectively negates the others. Impartial would mean without bias, taking sides, having an vested interest (ie disinterested!) etc. In contrast, most people’s definition of disinterested would rarely get to meaning impartial, they’d just assume you ain’t boverred! Like.
SuperFurrySeagull
Well-known member
But when words such as 'there', 'they're' & 'their', or 'were' & 'we're', or 'your' & 'you're' become interchangeable, then they stop being useful, no longer fit for purpose. Thing is, you see it happening now EVERYWHERE, so the battle's probably long lost & you're probably right not to get too hung up about it..
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
See post #59
portlock seagull
Why? Why us?
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,199
But when words such as 'there', 'they're' & 'their', or 'were' & 'we're', or 'your' & 'you're' become interchangeable, then they stop being useful, no longer fit for purpose. Thing is, you see it happening now EVERYWHERE, so the battle's probably long lost & you're probably right not to get too hung up about it..
Completely disagree. One of the reasons for the Great Education Bill in the 19th century was to standardise English. Spelling, grammar and so forth. Huge problems existed before then, amongst the literate not just the illiterate. ‘Talking the same language’ is worth it’s weight in gold. And you need standards for that. Imagine following signs to the ‘Sick Bay’, only to find it was ‘well wicked’ rather than a place to receive immediate medical attention! It’s important for society to function properly that standards exist. And language is enormously important in that respect. We simply can’t communicate effectively or efficiently without. It’s something to uphold not denigrate or even underestimate. Unless someone’s too lazy to learn, or believes it should be changed according to their own narcissistic reasoning - but that doesn’t mean everyone should lower themselves to, well, a lower standard. IMO obviously.
Sirnormangall
Well-known member
- Sep 21, 2017
- 2,977
There’s’ nothink better than a thread like this
Klaas
I've changed this
- Nov 1, 2017
- 2,568
Quite.
A friend of the lady recently moved to Totnes, which I found out is in the West Country. She joined a Facebook group for people who live in the area and now spends her days deciphering their posts due to their appalling grasp of English. Without fail each and every post is littered with misspellings, grammatical errors and incorrect punctuation. The irony is not lost that a lot of these linguist retards are, well, let’s say a bit patriotic.
Last edited:
Jaxie
Well-known member
I keep seeing this the other way around.
"His really good in goal'
Or even more infuriating, both used incorrectly in the same sentence.
“His got into He’s car.”
As it says in my post, the earliest recorded use of disinterested is the "incorrect" one. ie. the meaning that people now like to dispute.
Here's more on the subject from Merriam Webster:
. Disinterested and uninterested have a tangled history. Uninterested originally meant impartial, but this sense fell into disuse during the 18th century. About the same time the original sense of disinterested also disappeared, with uninterested developing a new sense—the present meaning—to take its place. The original sense of uninterested is still out of use, but the original sense of disinterested revived in the early 20th century. The revival has since been under frequent attack as an illiteracy and a blurring or loss of a useful distinction. Actual usage shows otherwise. The "free from selfish interest" sense of disinterested is still its most frequent sense, especially in edited prose; it shows no sign of vanishing. Further, disinterested has developed an additional sense—"no longer interested"—perhaps influenced by the "deprive of" sense of the prefix dis-, that contrasts with uninterested. when I grow tired or disinterested in anything, I experience a disgust — Jack London, letter, 1914. Still, use of the "not interested" and "no longer interested" senses of disinterested will incur the disapproval of some who may not fully appreciate the history of this word or the subtleties of its present use.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
Interesting. No, really.
I suppose the point I was making is that because usage determines meaning, whether we like it or not, we risk being misunderstood if we stand by our opinion of what a word ought to mean. It’s sad that useful distinctions are lost, but it has always happened and new ones may emerge.
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
May I refer you to the thread on jogger bottoms for an early burst of apoplexy and a reference to ASDAS
