5 ms·
"they're just saying the new usage should be accepted as well, not completely supercede the older one" You can argue that accepting both meanings may lead to d
by _0ffh 9y ago
"they're just saying the new usage should be accepted as well, not completely supercede the older one"
You can argue that accepting both meanings may lead to dangerous miscommunication, so it's vital that one interpretation supersedes [sic] the other. Some people who are on board with that argument are also champions of new word interpretations.
Example regarding the word "factoid" right there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9358604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9358604
"Nobody does that. [...] Only the other way around happens."
If a new meaning pops up for an old word, at what point does correcting someone's mistake become being a language nazi? When one person decides that a word now has a new meaning? One per cent of the population? Ten? I honestly don't know, but as long as it's not clear that the accepted meaning has really changed, I call "the other way around" plainly "correcting a mistake".
I'd rather not enable people who will stick to the first thing they have "learned" about a topic, no matter if it turns out to be mistaken.
- resu_nimda 9y agoGiven the nature of your post, the incorrect usage of [sic] really stands out... There aren't really any set-in-stone rules about language, the "accepted meaning" of something depends entirely on who you ask. Personally I am more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist, as long as I can understand what the person means I'm fine, I might even encourage "incorrect" usages if they are funny or somehow apt. On another note, I like that you recalled and found a seemingly unimportant comment of yours from over two years ago that related to changing word usage.
- _0ffh 9y agoAs I hoped I had made clear, I'm also more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist. And I'm not against being creative with words now and then. I just wouldn't insist on every one of them becoming the new norm. My criticism is that even when mainstream usage is divided (so descriptivism will not take you very far), people who argue for changing the meaning tend to argue unfairly that seemingly only the people on their side of the divide count. All the others are just boring old prescriptivists. I, on the opposite, would rather go with established use as long as it's not clear that the accepted meaning has really changed. About sic btw, it indicates that the spelling of a word is exactly the intended one. Even if that spelling is /not/ wrong (afaik). It was meant to gently draw attention to that spelling without giving offence.
- ScottBurson 9y agoI was not until now aware that "factoid" could mean "small fact", so the person you were replying to was clearly mistaken.
- DanBC 9y ago> You can argue that accepting both meanings may lead to dangerous miscommunication When could using "less" instead of "fewer" cause danger?