Mildly Interesting

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 7 months ago (6 children)

The strange argument is that they meant to use definition 1-a, and they did. It is a perfectly normal use of the word.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

And I'm saying 1-b is so strongly universal in English speaking countries that it should probably swap places with 1-a. Arguing against this feels pretty nitpicky to be honest. Look at the ratio of people who agree with the top level comment, e.g. 🤷‍♂️

I'll concede your argument might not be "strange"—that was a poor choice of word—but you are openly ignoring counter arguments which feels strange. And saying things like "I don't speak Latin" out of nowhere in the middle of argumentation, like that's a counter argument.

This whole correspondence just feels like I'm talking to a character from Alice in Wonderland. 🫪

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

What would swapping 1-a and 1-b's places do? I'm not ignoring 1-b because it's lower in rank or something. In the context of the given sentence, it just doesn't apply.

I'll share an anecdote, okay. This is an excerpt from Dickens' Bleak House, the beginning of chapter 1:

Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.

The word 'wonderful' there is not being used to mean 'good' or 'exciting', it's leaning on an archaic definition that means 'strange'. It might have positive connotations; I sort of feel like it does. It's kind of hard to understand, though, unless you have that piece of information.

When I learned this information, let's say about a month ago, my initial thoughts were "Oh wow. I didn't know wonderful could mean that. That's cool. I learned something." And now, Bleak House, which is before my time, will be slightly less challenging to read. I'm sure I won't, but it will be.

I'm not being nitpicky for no reason, I'm arguing in favor of literacy. Knowing that 'accidental' can be used in ways you don't expect should be interesting, and not just flatly refused.

Further, I don't see people who agree that the word is used incorrectly, I see people who are mildly confused by it. All of them understand what's being said just fine. And all I'm saying is that they don't need to be confused.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the word 'literally'? About how it's often used as an intensifier now and has lost some of its significance as an antonym to figurative. I'll share my answer after yours.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (3 children)

All that is fine and dandy, just like "awesome" and other examples, but when there are more descriptive words, I still think it's better to use them, also in favor of literacy. Why stamp everything with "accident" when you can use better words from a more expansive vocabulary? These are journalist writers ffs. They do this for a living. I'm merely disappointed. [Edit: huh. I guess there's no article here. 😳 Never mind about expectations, I suppose.]

I agree with you that you should respect all meanings of a word but sometimes it becomes ambiguous, as in this case (1-b is, too, applicable), and sometimes there are just more descriptive, seemingly forgotten words to choose from, also as in this case.

I'm also on your side regarding "literally", from the tail end of your comment. I don't use it as an intensifier. It's stupid. But I reluctantly accept that language is malleable.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

I don't know what you mean by more descriptive. The only meanings here that are necessary are "by chance" and "unexpected".

The word 'uninentional' would convey a similar meaning, it'd be fine, but there are situations out there where it doesn't work.

"Their meeting was entirely unintentional."

By whose intent? If we're speaking from the perspective of fate, then this is actually a bad choice.

"Their meeting was entirely inadvertent."

I'm... not sure what this would even mean. I would probably assume this came from a 17-year-old who got their hands on a thesaurus.

"Their meeting was entirely by chance."

This obviously works. I think it lacks a bit of whimsy. Maybe it trades one whimsy for another. Accidental means "by chance," though, you'd only be trading the word for its definition.

but sometimes it becomes ambiguous, as in this case (1-b is, too, applicable),

1-b is not applicable. The outcome of this accident is a fortunate one, so a misfortunate interpretation would be incorrect. I mean, this is why it feels odd to you, is it not?

I can only assume that what happened is you read the sentence and thought it would end "They accidentally shit their pants," or something, and were surprised it didn't. That didn't happen to me. And even if it had, I could have recovered.

I'm also on your side regarding "literally" [...] I don't use it as an intensifier. It's stupid.

Eh heh~ This is not the side that I'm on.

Knowing different sides of a word, or in this case adding new ones, allows you to affect your speech in different ways to say different things about yourself. If you're being formal, then you wouldn't use the intensifier variant of literally, or at least you would be more precise about it, but if you wanted to seem more street, or maybe youthful, then literally might be a great choice. Think about the power this gives you when writing dialogue for characters, or when speaking to certain demographics.

In my view, 'literally' getting another definition only increases the number of toys in my toybox.

I did say earlier that I defend slang.