5 ms·

'Wicked' is in transition.

by justinpombrio 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago
As is "literally," much as it pains me.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  "inflammable" grinds my gears.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
    - quesera 10y ago
      I know you're memeing a quote, but the etymology of "flammable" is kind of awesome. Flammable is a word, invented several times over history (most recently in the 1940s), to mean that same thing as "inflammable" (able to become inflamed) because it's important to get correct and the in- prefix confuses people into thinking it means the opposite. French and Italian apparently have words beginning ininflam- which mean "not-inflammable". Americans prefer an the less ambiguous concoction: "non-flammable".
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Yeah, it's a great topic, funny and interesting. And it's about fire and explosions. What could be better?
      - pvaldes 10y ago
        ininflamable is also the common word in spanish.
    - pvaldes 10y ago
      Inflamable is the standard word in spanish for that. Means something that can go "in flames". A similar case is "Orange", that lost its first letter in English, italian and french, Spanish keeps the original form: "Naranja" for both fruit and colour. Similar as the "Norange" that was the original word used in English and French. I can see only advantages in using the same word again.
  - rspeer 10y ago
    And that's the original word. This is a word that's changing pretty rapidly because nobody's pushing back against it. No one shouts "you're stupid and wrong" at people who use the word "flammable" instead of "inflammable". Every sensible person can recognize that "flammable" is the clearer version of the word, and being clear is important in this case, so who cares what the word used to be. So as opposed to cases where people get angry about language changing, this is a case to get angry that language hasn't completely changed yet.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  But it isn't in transition, more and more people are simply wrong.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    Oh I forgot, in language there's no such thing as a mistake. All alternate usages are correct uses of never-before seen dialects. In that case, I know Japanese. Just not the same one that anyone else knows...
- tedunangst 10y ago
  The transition happened before you were born. Relax and enjoy it.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  What's the original and new version of that?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Original is that something is exactly as written. New (although not really that new, but catching on more) is the opposite, a synonym of "figuratively."
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Oh no. That's a perfect example of the crap I'm talking about. (rubs fingers against forehead)
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        Don't panic. While there is a definite meme around exasperation at this (and apparently some dictionaries are on board), I think they have it wrong. In every example I've seen, including those proffered by those promulgating the meme, the difference intended by addition of "literally" is emphasis. Omission would not have lead to the listener/reader being more likely to conclude that the utterance was literal. It's simply hyperbole. "It was figuratively X so much that it was almost literally X, but obviously you understand that it was still only figurative." This doesn't mean it's completely harmless - overuse of the word in that role does make it marginally harder to convey that something was actually, literally the case when it's expected that it would be figuratively the case. But it's not a reversal of sense. When someone says, "I've walked miles around the store looking for you", we don't conclude that there is a new use of the word "miles" to mean "hundreds of feet". We say they were exaggerating for emphasis.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  I actually disagree with this analysis. People complaining about it point at use of "literally" on figurative uses, but I have never seen an example where "figuratively" would not have been understood if the word were omitted. It is not an inversion of meaning, but rather hyperbolic use, used for emphasis.
memsom 10y ago
Maybe in the US, but wicked was meant "good" in UK slang for 20 or more years. The weird part is usage. In the UK, this construction is usual: "That book was well wicked mate!" "That book was extremely good friend" In other words, in the UK the word "wicked" always stands on its own, could be replaced by "good", "excellent", "amazing" or indeed, "sick" (in the modern sense of the word.) I think "wicked" is not a bit cliched now though. It sounds quite quaint to me. I wouldn't use it anymore except to be ironic. But on the other hand, I only hear US usage more like "wicked cool" - which sounds very artificial and "Dadspeak"(1) to me. Can the US usage be stand alone, or is it only used as an adjective? (1) Dadspeak - when a Dad tries to sound cool and fails horribly by incorrectly using slang terms they don't really understand.

'Wicked' is in transition.

mikeash 10y ago

As is "literally," much as it pains me.

WalterBright 10y ago
"inflammable" grinds my gears.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
  - quesera 10y ago
    I know you're memeing a quote, but the etymology of "flammable" is kind of awesome. Flammable is a word, invented several times over history (most recently in the 1940s), to mean that same thing as "inflammable" (able to become inflamed) because it's important to get correct and the in- prefix confuses people into thinking it means the opposite. French and Italian apparently have words beginning ininflam- which mean "not-inflammable". Americans prefer an the less ambiguous concoction: "non-flammable".
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Yeah, it's a great topic, funny and interesting. And it's about fire and explosions. What could be better?
    - pvaldes 10y ago
      ininflamable is also the common word in spanish.
  - pvaldes 10y ago
    Inflamable is the standard word in spanish for that. Means something that can go "in flames". A similar case is "Orange", that lost its first letter in English, italian and french, Spanish keeps the original form: "Naranja" for both fruit and colour. Similar as the "Norange" that was the original word used in English and French. I can see only advantages in using the same word again.
- rspeer 10y ago
  And that's the original word. This is a word that's changing pretty rapidly because nobody's pushing back against it. No one shouts "you're stupid and wrong" at people who use the word "flammable" instead of "inflammable". Every sensible person can recognize that "flammable" is the clearer version of the word, and being clear is important in this case, so who cares what the word used to be. So as opposed to cases where people get angry about language changing, this is a case to get angry that language hasn't completely changed yet.
EdHominem 10y ago
But it isn't in transition, more and more people are simply wrong.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Oh I forgot, in language there's no such thing as a mistake. All alternate usages are correct uses of never-before seen dialects. In that case, I know Japanese. Just not the same one that anyone else knows...
tedunangst 10y ago
The transition happened before you were born. Relax and enjoy it.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
What's the original and new version of that?
- mikeash 10y ago
  Original is that something is exactly as written. New (although not really that new, but catching on more) is the opposite, a synonym of "figuratively."
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Oh no. That's a perfect example of the crap I'm talking about. (rubs fingers against forehead)
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      Don't panic. While there is a definite meme around exasperation at this (and apparently some dictionaries are on board), I think they have it wrong. In every example I've seen, including those proffered by those promulgating the meme, the difference intended by addition of "literally" is emphasis. Omission would not have lead to the listener/reader being more likely to conclude that the utterance was literal. It's simply hyperbole. "It was figuratively X so much that it was almost literally X, but obviously you understand that it was still only figurative." This doesn't mean it's completely harmless - overuse of the word in that role does make it marginally harder to convey that something was actually, literally the case when it's expected that it would be figuratively the case. But it's not a reversal of sense. When someone says, "I've walked miles around the store looking for you", we don't conclude that there is a new use of the word "miles" to mean "hundreds of feet". We say they were exaggerating for emphasis.
dllthomas 10y ago
I actually disagree with this analysis. People complaining about it point at use of "literally" on figurative uses, but I have never seen an example where "figuratively" would not have been understood if the word were omitted. It is not an inversion of meaning, but rather hyperbolic use, used for emphasis.

memsom 10y ago

Maybe in the US, but wicked was meant "good" in UK slang for 20 or more years. The weird part is usage. In the UK, this construction is usual: "That book was well wicked mate!" "That book was extremely good friend" In other words, in the UK the word "wicked" always stands on its own, could be replaced by "good", "excellent", "amazing" or indeed, "sick" (in the modern sense of the word.) I think "wicked" is not a bit cliched now though. It sounds quite quaint to me. I wouldn't use it anymore except to be ironic. But on the other hand, I only hear US usage more like "wicked cool" - which sounds very artificial and "Dadspeak"(1) to me. Can the US usage be stand alone, or is it only used as an adjective? (1) Dadspeak - when a Dad tries to sound cool and fails horribly by incorrectly using slang terms they don't really understand.