Author Topic: You keep on using that word (Read 35088 times)

Porter · « **on:** September 17, 2009, 07:48:36 PM »

..it means.

What are some words, preferably with recognizable Latin or Greek roots, that no longer mean what they "really", "technically", or originally mean?

There are words like "inconsiderate" (the SR thread on elevators is what made me think about this), which while it doesn't quite mean "not considerate", is close enough that if you don't know what it means, you'll have a pretty darn good idea just by looking at it.

Such as "incredible" which originally meant "unbelievable". The standard meaning of it today is a metaphorical usage of the original meaning.

Then there are words which can be parsed for their original meaning, but whose current usage is even further removed.

I'm looking for some interesting words that fall somewhere around the latter two categories

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #1 on:** September 17, 2009, 08:51:05 PM »

"Inflammable" is not the antonym of "flammable". I just don't get that one.

"Decimated" literally and originally was "reduced by 10% ("Tithing to the Church decimated my paycheck"), but nowadays it is used to mean "almost completely eliminated".

"Awful" originally and literally was "full of awe" or "awe-inspiring" ("Have you heard the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? They are awful!"), but now means "horrible" or "dreadful".

The Genuine · « **Reply #2 on:** September 17, 2009, 08:55:34 PM »

After taxes, how would you feel if the remainder of your paycheck was decimated?

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #3 on:** September 17, 2009, 08:57:33 PM »

My 401K contribution decimates my paycheck.

Porter · « **Reply #4 on:** September 17, 2009, 08:59:28 PM »

Quote

"Inflammable" is not the antonym of "flammable". I just don't get that one.

The original word was "inflammabe". The word 'flammable' came later.

Quote

"Decimated" literally and originally was "reduced by 10% ("Tithing to the Church decimated my paycheck"), but nowadays it is used to mean "almost completely eliminated".

I understand that there was an intermediate meaning that meant "reduce to 10%".

Quote

After taxes, how would you feel if the remainder of your paycheck was decimated?

It's decimated before taxes.

Porter · « **Reply #5 on:** September 17, 2009, 09:01:31 PM »

Quote

"Awful" originally and literally was "full of awe" or "awe-inspiring" ("Have you heard the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? They are awful!"), but now means "horrible" or "dreadful".

Kinda like "the great and terrible day of the Lord".

The Genuine · « **Reply #6 on:** September 17, 2009, 09:03:21 PM »

Quote

My 401K contribution decimates my paycheck.

I know! But I just can't stop!

I've often thought of cancelling, even before the stock crash. Now I'm just holding on like a crying baby on his first roller coaster.

Jonathon · « **Reply #7 on:** September 17, 2009, 09:07:56 PM »

Quote

"Inflammable" is not the antonym of "flammable". I just don't get that one.

It's a different in- prefix. Inflammable means 'capable of being inflamed', not 'incapable of being flamed'. But because it was frequently misconstrued, people started using flammable.

The Genuine · « **Reply #8 on:** September 17, 2009, 09:10:20 PM »

I think the error occured when they chose "inflammable" over "inflamable" or "inflameable." Or, maybe, they should have just chosen "fiery."

Jonathon · « **Reply #9 on:** September 17, 2009, 09:19:53 PM »

I don't see how that would fix anything. And really, it's not like anyone chose anything. It was simply borrowed from French.

The Genuine · « **Reply #10 on:** September 17, 2009, 09:25:35 PM »

Inadvertent borrowing?

Jonathon · « **Reply #11 on:** September 17, 2009, 09:28:14 PM »

Huh?

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #12 on:** September 17, 2009, 10:18:32 PM »

Borrowed implies that we returned it later. As far as I can tell, we haven't given it back.

We stole it from the French!

pooka · « **Reply #13 on:** September 17, 2009, 10:18:45 PM »

Quote

Inadvertent borrowing?

You mean like theft, or infection?

I'm sure I could think of good examples until you asked. I have to go to bed now.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #14 on:** September 18, 2009, 01:02:23 AM »

Quote

Borrowed implies that we returned it later. As far as I can tell, we haven't given it back.

We stole it from the French!

No, we bartered. We took inflammable and gave them le western.

Jonathon · « **Reply #15 on:** September 18, 2009, 09:06:14 AM »

Quote

Borrowed implies that we returned it later. As far as I can tell, we haven't given it back.

We stole it from the French!

No, it's like file sharing. They just gave us a copy.

Porter · « **Reply #16 on:** September 18, 2009, 09:13:21 AM »

You mean file stealing.

Jonathon · « **Reply #17 on:** September 18, 2009, 09:46:30 AM »

But information wants to be free!

goofy · « **Reply #18 on:** September 22, 2009, 05:58:46 AM »

Quote

"Decimated" literally and originally was "reduced by 10% ("Tithing to the Church decimated my paycheck"), but nowadays it is used to mean "almost completely eliminated".

It meant "to select by lot and kill every tenth man of" and "to exact a tax of 10 percent from". Interestingly, according to OED editor Jesse Sheidlower, it has never been used in English to mean "destroy one-tenth of".

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #19 on:** September 22, 2009, 06:27:11 AM »

Ingenious is not the opposite of genius.

Inert is not the opposite of ert.

goofy · « **Reply #20 on:** September 22, 2009, 06:49:57 AM »

There are a couple of -in prefixes. One means negation or privation, as in impossible, illiterate, irregular. Another means "'into, in, within; on, upon; towards, against', sometimes expressing onward motion or continuance, sometimes intensive, sometimes transitive, and in other cases with little appreciable force" (OED), as in inflammable (and inflame), irradiate, imperil, ingenious. Both of these are borrowed from Latin and exhibit assimilation with the following sound.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #21 on:** September 22, 2009, 09:13:11 AM »

If we would just use kanji, we wouldn't have these problems.

Jonathon · « **Reply #22 on:** September 22, 2009, 09:24:14 AM »

But then we'd have some all-new problems.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #23 on:** September 22, 2009, 10:06:34 AM »

Quote

There are a couple of -in prefixes. One means negation or privation, as in impossible, illiterate, irregular. Another means "'into, in, within; on, upon; towards, against', sometimes expressing onward motion or continuance, sometimes intensive, sometimes transitive, and in other cases with little appreciable force" (OED), as in inflammable (and inflame), irradiate, imperil, ingenious. Both of these are borrowed from Latin and exhibit assimilation with the following sound.

And it leads to so much confusion! The "in" in inert is of the first variety, but still, we have no "ert" (or "ertia", for that matter).

Jonathon · « **Reply #24 on:** September 22, 2009, 10:18:34 AM »

Are you actually confused, or is it more of the "why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?" sort of confusion?