Pedants' Paradise

[oddoneout]

Like ff in#6034 I've often wondered when a new meaning of a word moves from being 'wrong' or 'spurious' to being correct or at least colloquially acceptable. We had this recently with 'woke' which still doesn't appear in some dictionaries yet is already changing its meaning, to the disapproval of some. And of course thee's even 'you're not allowed to use that word, because you're not a ...'.

I've campaigned against 'incredible' used to mean 'remarkable' and 'cathartic' used to mean 'useful'. But I'm coming to think it's futile. The only trouble is: what do you say when you really mean 'incredible' or 'cathartic'?

When did 'cathartic' mean 'useful'? In the previous discussion over the word I don't remember that coming up - other than that the process of catharsis might be of use I suppose.
One of the difficulties with some of the alternatives to incredible - 'unbelievable' or 'beyond belief' - which would be accurate in many cases, is that they can imply disbelief in the sense of untruth, to which someone might take exception.
My particular gripe, for very many years, is the misuse of 'disinterested' to mean 'uninterested'. It removes a useful and specific term from use. I've just been looking up to see if modern definitions and usage have taken over from the original and have just come across the Merriam-Webster entry which says that when first introduced the meaning of the words was the other way round. Unfortunately that doesn't mean that in modern usage that we have got back the 'unbiased' sense of the word; the two are just used interchangeably.

[french frank]

Like ff in#6034 I've often wondered when a new meaning of a word moves from being 'wrong' or 'spurious' to being correct or at least colloquially acceptable.

I was an A level examiner for years and at the start there were certain forms that were automatically penalised. Later we went into an examiners' huddle to dither and take a joint decision so that at least we all marked it the same way. Finally, we gloomily accepted it as 'current French'. How would anyone under the age of 40 know that it had ever been considered wrong?

[vinteuil]

I was an A level examiner for years and at the start there were certain forms that were automatically penalised. Later we went into an examiners' huddle to dither and take a joint decision so that at least we all marked it the same way. Finally, we gloomily accepted it as 'current French'. How would anyone under the age of 40 know that it had ever been considered wrong?

... would they have let you get away with ails thirty years ago?

.

[french frank]

... would they have let you get away with ails thirty years ago?

.

I'll have to consult the others on that to decide what the correct answer was and when, but I don't recall it ever actually turning up

[Pulcinella]

One aspect of language usage which is difficult to gauge is at what point a gradually increasing usage, which may not ultimately survive, tips over from being a new usage to being the unremarkable norm. I was struck by this thought on reading: "Winkleman has three children with her partner, film producer Kris Thykier, whom she married in 2000."

Is there something now socially unacceptable about calling him her husband (of 23 years)? Or is there a well-known nuance which I've missed, like they divorced in 2001 but have continued their relationship?

From the Guardian website just now, with reference to Glenys Kinnock, whose death has just been announced:

She was the beloved wife and life partner of Neil, the cherished mother of Steve and Rachel, and an adored grandmother. Neil was with her in her final moments. They had been married for 56 years.

Best of both worlds?

[smittims]

Hi, oddoneout, first let me agree with you over 'disinterested' . I've had that one out several times.

Quite often on Radio 4 I hear someone say (or words to this effect) ' I found the experience quite cathartic; when the context suggests they mean 'useful' or 'helpful' in solving a personal problem. I think it's part of the way people like to exaggerate the importance of their own experience; they say 'traumatic' when they mean 'disturbing' and 'in shock' when something surprised them.

[oddoneout]

Hi, oddoneout, first let me agree with you over 'disinterested' . I've had that one out several times.

Quite often on Radio 4 I hear someone say (or words to this effect) ' I found the experience quite cathartic; when the context suggests they mean 'useful' or 'helpful' in solving a personal problem. I think it's part of the way people like to exaggerate the importance of their own experience; they say 'traumatic' when they mean 'disturbing' and 'in shock' when something surprised them.

I've more often come across the use of cathartic in a way that approximates to its original meaning/use, as expressing a clearing( purging) of emotions, so I suppose from there it is a short step to diluting to more general personal problem solving usage, particularly where no attempt has been made to find out what the word they are using means - even if only in modern terms, rather than the origins of the word.
Given the ease with which such things can be found now(not just the meaning of words), the general lack of curiosity I find sad.

[vinteuil]

"Rico Andrews, 21, was found injured by officers and paramedics"

[BBC News website]

.

[eighthobstruction]

....Jeez, you'd all have a rough time around my house....consider yourselves rebuked....(or as we say in our house "repuked"....)

[Serial_Apologist]

"Rico Andrews, 21, was found injured by officers and paramedics"

[BBC News website]

.

[Serial_Apologist]

....Jeez, you'd all have a rough time around my house....consider yourselves rebuked....(or as we say in our house "repuked"....)

Whereas we would say "Severely castigated... and told off".

[kernelbogey]

I can't make up my mind if this - from a Peter Bradshaw film review in the Guardian - is 'correct' or not:

The chief plotter isn’t whom everyone considers the obvious candidate...

In a sense it's purely academic since there is no ambiguity; though I would have written 'who'.

[smittims]

Yes, it's the old chestnut about 'It's me' v. 'It is I'. .

I'd say: '...isn't the one everyone considers...' . I think '...isn't whom' (or 'who') is an awkward construction.

I've never liked '...I love that you've coloured the border..' , for instance.

[gurnemanz]

Re 'The chief plotter isn’t whom everyone considers the obvious candidate..'

I agree that 'who' is preferable. You can see why the writer picked 'whom', seeing it as the object of 'considers', whereas I would think that being the complement of 'isn't' takes precedence, hence the subject form 'who'. With a sentence like: 'He isn't who we think he is', surely few people would opt for 'whom'.

'The chief plotter isn't a man whom everyone considers the obvious candidate.' He could have chosen this sentence with the same meaning but different syntax where 'whom' is clearly correct, being a relative pronoun in the object case and 'a man' is the complement of 'isn't'.

[kernelbogey]

A Guardian piece about the restoration of Notre Dame in Paris describes the installation of a 'rooster' on the spire, rather than a cockerel. The piece was provided by AP in Paris. Tant pis.