5 ms·

> to diffuse a bomb If even the Boston Review's subeditors don't know the difference between "diffuse" and "defuse"... well, English is going to change a lot

> to diffuse a bomb If even the Boston Review's subeditors don't know the difference between "diffuse" and "defuse"... well, English is going to change a lot in the next couple of decades. It will get a lot more ambiguous.

reidjs 4y ago
In the context I think it’s clear what they mean.
- karamanolev 4y ago
  Does it matter with regards to the above comments? In this context, right now, it's clear. As we start losing track of the precise meaning of words, we'll get an increasing population size that doesn't even know the alternative exists. It's inevitable to then start using them in contexts where both spellings/meanings are valid and using the wrong one results in confusion.
  - pkage 4y ago
    I'm not sure pearl-clutching about losing the meaning of words is appropriate, it seems like a small mistake from the editing team slipped through.
  - BalinKing 4y ago
    That’s just how languages evolve; there’s nothing particularly dangerous about it. (Besides, I really doubt there are many scenarios where “diffuse” and “defuse” could reasonably be confused.)
    - smolder 4y ago
      People say this evolution thing about language frequently but not all changes are positive for a languages utility, clearly. It can get better and it can get worse. When words start meaning their opposite and then consequently nothing, like with "literally", that's evolving away from usefulness.
    - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
      Devolves. If meaning is abstracted by multiple words spelt different ways and context specific understanding is required, then there will be a greater cognitive load to reach 'understanding' and the language will move away from it's goal of conveying meaning. This is a long tail, but it's not like we've only just started down it. I actually find misspelling and bad phraseology to judge how seriously I should take a person's opinion, though factored in amongst other things (if it's obvious that English is their second language, or if their field of expertise may be one that eschews language skills, for example).
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        There is no language that isn't effective at conveying meaning, because doing that is fundamental to what language is. People have been complaining and worrying about this since, literally, the beginning of recorded history. Our language is much "devolved" specifically in the ways many of them were worried about, and yet we are still having this conversation in it. You might not like how it tastes in your mouth but it'll still work fine for the needs we have of it, as all languages always have.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    They're phonetically identical in most dialects so no meaning was confused here, it's a simple transcription error. The way you say "spelling/meaning" implies you think they're the same thing but they just absolutely are not, as much as that pains pedants sometimes. If you think otherwise you're mistaken about very basic and long-confirmed foundations of linguistics, like whether meaning derives from the spoken form or the writing system.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  In contacts, it's probably pretty clear what I mean here, too. A lot of incorrect things become interpretable when viewed in contacts.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    Your loosing you're mined.
    - tarboreus 4y ago
      I think he makes a really reticulate point.
gumby 4y ago
Technically, wouldn't detonation of a bomb "diffuse" it? I hope that's not what they meant, though!
- FpUser 4y ago
  Only partially ;) Unless it is nuke
jjulius 4y ago
Stuff happens, people make mistakes, innocuous stuff like that slips through sometimes. I really don't know that I'd take this long-term view of the English language based on a single typo in the Boston Review, but then again I'm also not sure if that comment is missing a "/s".
- aliqot 4y ago
  I think they do make a point though. Either the immediacy everything has now, or the increased reliance on spell checkers has caused a decline in overall literacy beyond the basic level. I am far from perfect, and I'm not educated. Let me make that disclaimer first. With that out of the way, I've been online for some time and in the last 10 years, it is common to see a few common errors that I'd say we are in danger of introducing into the lexicon via dictionary-squatting: - it's and its. If you can't substitute it's for "it is/was/has", then you need its, the possessive form of the word. - there/their/they're - your/you're - are/our - to/two/too - This is the most common, by far. - definitely - not definately, just say def or something. I could go on, but it's starting to feel petty or like my standards are too high for personal correspondence. "Elder shakes fist at terminal"
  - togs 4y ago
    Those all click for me. It's who/whom that gets me. To whom does this belong? Who climbed up that tree?
  - jjulius 4y ago
    Sure, I totally get it, and I even agree to some extent. A lot of that eats at me on the regular, too. But as I get older, the impermanence of, well, everything sits at the front of my mind a lot more often than it used to. Add to that the fact that English has always been in a perpetual state of change, and I just kinda shrug my shoulders at the idea of it changing further.
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      > I just kinda shrug my shoulders at the idea of it changing further. I'm just about at this point. I'm too old to bother to yell "get off my lawn!" anymore. But I thought a discussion about change in English over time might teach me something. Thanks, all!
VoodooJuJu 4y ago
Given the context, we understood what they meant. Language is driven by writers and speakers with skin in the game, not nitpickers with dictionaries.
FpUser 4y ago
It is quite common now. Their not crossing any boarders here. /s

reidjs 4y ago

In the context I think it’s clear what they mean.

karamanolev 4y ago
Does it matter with regards to the above comments? In this context, right now, it's clear. As we start losing track of the precise meaning of words, we'll get an increasing population size that doesn't even know the alternative exists. It's inevitable to then start using them in contexts where both spellings/meanings are valid and using the wrong one results in confusion.
- pkage 4y ago
  I'm not sure pearl-clutching about losing the meaning of words is appropriate, it seems like a small mistake from the editing team slipped through.
- BalinKing 4y ago
  That’s just how languages evolve; there’s nothing particularly dangerous about it. (Besides, I really doubt there are many scenarios where “diffuse” and “defuse” could reasonably be confused.)
  - smolder 4y ago
    People say this evolution thing about language frequently but not all changes are positive for a languages utility, clearly. It can get better and it can get worse. When words start meaning their opposite and then consequently nothing, like with "literally", that's evolving away from usefulness.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    Devolves. If meaning is abstracted by multiple words spelt different ways and context specific understanding is required, then there will be a greater cognitive load to reach 'understanding' and the language will move away from it's goal of conveying meaning. This is a long tail, but it's not like we've only just started down it. I actually find misspelling and bad phraseology to judge how seriously I should take a person's opinion, though factored in amongst other things (if it's obvious that English is their second language, or if their field of expertise may be one that eschews language skills, for example).
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      There is no language that isn't effective at conveying meaning, because doing that is fundamental to what language is. People have been complaining and worrying about this since, literally, the beginning of recorded history. Our language is much "devolved" specifically in the ways many of them were worried about, and yet we are still having this conversation in it. You might not like how it tastes in your mouth but it'll still work fine for the needs we have of it, as all languages always have.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  They're phonetically identical in most dialects so no meaning was confused here, it's a simple transcription error. The way you say "spelling/meaning" implies you think they're the same thing but they just absolutely are not, as much as that pains pedants sometimes. If you think otherwise you're mistaken about very basic and long-confirmed foundations of linguistics, like whether meaning derives from the spoken form or the writing system.
pessimizer 4y ago
In contacts, it's probably pretty clear what I mean here, too. A lot of incorrect things become interpretable when viewed in contacts.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  Your loosing you're mined.
  - tarboreus 4y ago
    I think he makes a really reticulate point.

gumby 4y ago

Technically, wouldn't detonation of a bomb "diffuse" it? I hope that's not what they meant, though!

FpUser 4y ago
Only partially ;) Unless it is nuke

jjulius 4y ago

Stuff happens, people make mistakes, innocuous stuff like that slips through sometimes. I really don't know that I'd take this long-term view of the English language based on a single typo in the Boston Review, but then again I'm also not sure if that comment is missing a "/s".

aliqot 4y ago
I think they do make a point though. Either the immediacy everything has now, or the increased reliance on spell checkers has caused a decline in overall literacy beyond the basic level. I am far from perfect, and I'm not educated. Let me make that disclaimer first. With that out of the way, I've been online for some time and in the last 10 years, it is common to see a few common errors that I'd say we are in danger of introducing into the lexicon via dictionary-squatting: - it's and its. If you can't substitute it's for "it is/was/has", then you need its, the possessive form of the word. - there/their/they're - your/you're - are/our - to/two/too - This is the most common, by far. - definitely - not definately, just say def or something. I could go on, but it's starting to feel petty or like my standards are too high for personal correspondence. "Elder shakes fist at terminal"
- togs 4y ago
  Those all click for me. It's who/whom that gets me. To whom does this belong? Who climbed up that tree?
- jjulius 4y ago
  Sure, I totally get it, and I even agree to some extent. A lot of that eats at me on the regular, too. But as I get older, the impermanence of, well, everything sits at the front of my mind a lot more often than it used to. Add to that the fact that English has always been in a perpetual state of change, and I just kinda shrug my shoulders at the idea of it changing further.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    > I just kinda shrug my shoulders at the idea of it changing further. I'm just about at this point. I'm too old to bother to yell "get off my lawn!" anymore. But I thought a discussion about change in English over time might teach me something. Thanks, all!

VoodooJuJu 4y ago

Given the context, we understood what they meant. Language is driven by writers and speakers with skin in the game, not nitpickers with dictionaries.

FpUser 4y ago

It is quite common now. Their not crossing any boarders here. /s