244
What's your entirely unimportant and inconsequential hot take? (crazypeople.online)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
668 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Nothing too serious, i want to hear your petty, your eccentric, your off beat takes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 2 months ago (7 children)

"Ignorant" does mean wilfully ignorant. It doesn't just mean uninformed.

To be vacant is to have been vacated.

To be an applicant is to have applied.

To be a claimant is to have made a claim.

And to be ignorant is to have ignored something.

(Of course, not all "-ant" words seem to stand alone without their suffix--at least, not in today's vernacular. Does an arrogant person arrog? Does a fragrant flower frag? Rob Words might have more to say about the vestigial origins of some of these.)

Can't wait to learn how I might just be ignorant about this (by my definition or the "real" one).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You're using "ignore" wrong, not the other way around.

    If you want to be a linguistic pedant, then we should consider that both "ignorant" and "ignore" ultimately comes from proto-indo-european *ǵneh₃-, which meant "to know", and a negation prefix. So really the words should mean "the act of not knowing" (ignore) and "the quality/state of not knowing" (ignorant). Not avoiding knowledge, just lacking it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    The difference is that fragrant and arrogant relate to words that end with -ance, i.e. fragrance and arrogance. For that matter, so do ignorance and vacancey (ish). Applicant and claimant are a separate category of -ant suffix.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You have described the difference between ignorant and willfully ignorant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    To ignore is always willful, isn't it?

    But I think one of the examples I picked has finally talked me out of this. I would happily use "vacant" to also describe a place that has never been occupied, so it didn't require vacating to be vacant. In that case, vacate means to make vacant, not vice versa. I'll apply that to ignore/ignorant, and I think I finally understand how people have been so comfortable with that definition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    I will also say that 'to ignore something' implies but doesn't mean to be aware of something. If you're not aware of something, you're ignoring it by default, which is also the case with being ignorant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent