3 ms·
Unrelated note: I had always thought "nonplussed" was basically a synonym for something like "bewildering confusion." But the way you used it in this context su
by burntsushi 3y ago
Unrelated note: I had always thought "nonplussed" was basically a synonym for something like "bewildering confusion." But the way you used it in this context suggested the exact opposite. It turns out that "nonplussed" has also come to mean "unperturbed": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonplussed https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonplussed
Quite confusing, because the two different meanings are nearly opposite to one another.
See also: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/nonplussed https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/nonplussed
- thaumasiotes 3y ago> Quite confusing, because the two different meanings are nearly opposite to one another. It's pretty easy to see where the innovative sense came from: "plussed" doesn't mean anything, but "non" is clearly negative. So when you encounter the word, you can tell that it describes (a) a reaction in which (b) something doesn't happen. So everyone independently guesses that it means failing to have much of a reaction, and when everyone thinks a word means something, then it does mean that thing. You see the same thing happen with "inflammable", where everyone is aware that "in" means "not" and "flame" means "fire". (Except that in the original sense, in is an intensifying prefix rather than a negative prefix. This doesn't occur in many other English words, although "inflammation" and "inflamed" aren't rare. Maybe "infatuate".)
- burntsushi 3y agoThat's pretty much what my second link is about. :-)
- codezero 3y agoWow, now I need to go figure what source material I misinterpreted to thoughtlessly use this word incorrectly. Thanks!