4 ms·

Given 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 meani

Given 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 ago
As 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.