4 ms·
This is the second time I've seen "understated" (mis)used that way recently. I am afraid this may be a trend, like the appearance in the world of "irregardless,
by garyrob 3y ago
This is the second time I've seen "understated" (mis)used that way recently. I am afraid this may be a trend, like the appearance in the world of "irregardless," which is becoming an accepted word, or the use of "literally," which used to mean, er, "literally," and now can be acceptably used in situations where it is figurative. Or the use of "there's" when there are more than one entity being referred to and "there're" would have been used in the good old days (which I remember because I'm 67).
- EGG_CREAM 3y agoWhat's the actual harm in that though? English is a living language, and as such, meanings change over time.
- ISO-morphism 3y agoFor things like "there's" vs. "there're", not too much harm besides a loss of precision, Grammer can be sloppy and meaning is still understood. But for "could care less" or "cannot be understated" or "irregardless" they're _literal_ negations of intended meaning used unsarcastically and unironically. How does that not irk you at a visceral level? Learning English is already hard enough, and we want to sprinkle in "sometimes what is meant is the exact opposite of what is said, good luck figuring out when, rely on context I guess?"