Words in the wrong context

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Flint

Hey, the living language embiggens us all.

I don't consider embiggen or even ginormous to be an acceptable trade-off for the dilution of anxious.

It's obvious that I am rapidly approaching codger-hood.

[DanaC]

I understand about the whole 'living language' argument. But it seems to me that, in cases like these, the language is the worse for it. Words that once had a precise and useful meaning are now more bland and less useful.

But anxious does have a precise, slightly different meaning when used in place of eager. I am anxious to ... as opposed to I am eager to... suggests a difference in how that anticipation is being experienced. Eager is a positive anticipation, anxious suggests that the experience is less positive.

[Clodfobble]

Unless people are using it in a situation about which they are entirely positive.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But anxious does have a precise, slightly different meaning when used in place of eager. I am anxious to ... as opposed to I am eager to... suggests a difference in how that anticipation is being experienced. Eager is a positive anticipation, anxious suggests that the experience is less positive.

In that case, you are using it correctly. Well done, you.

Something along the lines of "I'm really anxious for summer vacation to start" would be incorrect, but is often used.

[Flint]

What if you interpreted that sentence literally instead of assuming a wrong meaning?

[Clodfobble]

Then you would be like my husband, whose children are constantly frustrated when he deliberately misinterprets what they mean rather than just explaining what they should have said.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Then you would be like my husband, whose children are constantly frustrated when he deliberately misinterprets what they mean rather than just explaining what they should have said.

I like his method.

Compare it to, say, seeing dirty clothes on the floor*, close to the laundry chute. I *know* what was meant, the clothes are meant to go in the chute. But I *choose* to "deliberately misinterpret* the child's action, drawing attention to it, and having them fix it. My hope is not to frustrate them for sport, but to get them to correct it themselves.

Frustrating them gives them something to move away from. It's a tiny stick to complement the tiny carrot of doing it right the first time.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.


* used dishes in the sink next to the empty dishwasher is another common and apt comparison.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by dar512

In that case, you are using it correctly. Well done, you.

Something along the lines of "I'm really anxious for summer vacation to start" would be incorrect, but is often used.

Not necessarily, it may simply indicate that they have a slightly negative orientation to waiting: it makes them feel impatient and anxious to anticipate something, therefore they are anxious for the Summer to start.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by BigV

I *know* what was meant, the clothes are meant to go in the chute. But I *choose* to "deliberately misinterpret* the child's action, drawing attention to it, and having them fix it. My hope is not to frustrate them for sport, but to get them to correct it themselves.

How do you deliberately misinterpret the clothes on the floor? What do you say? Me, I say, "Put your clothes in the dirty clothes basket," and if the habit persists it gets pointed out with stronger methods and consequences. (For the record, so does Mr. Clod, I don't know exactly what sort of methods you're talking about here.)

By "deliberately misinterpreting," I'm talking about, instead of saying, "You mean to use the word 'eagerly' there, because 'anxiously' means more like...", saying something like:

"Well, that's funny, I don't know why you would be afraid of summer vacation."
"...What?"
"You know, you said you were nervous about summer vacation."
"No I didn't." (or more usually, we repeat the dumbfounded "...what?" cycle a few more times first.)
"Yes, because you said you were anxious."
And by then they mutter, "Yeah, okay, whatever," and don't actually learn what the mistake was, or worse, defiantly persist in using the wrong word, because they're tired of the passive-aggressive game.

[BigV]

Well, perhaps the analogy breaks down here. It works if you believe that the kid knows the right word, and also knows the right action (clothes/dishes). If we all know what the right usage is, and there's still misuse, then what's a parent to do to correct the error?

Why is the word being used incorrectly?

I see the dialog you use above as an attempt to use humor to instruct. I could be wrong. Is it just a passive aggressive game, where the adult is showing off? Then it's an *entirely* different problem, and language and vocabulary is just the weapon du jour.

I have a large vocabulary. I have been accused many times of talking over the heads of others for the punitive effect. Really? I'm just a windbag. ymmv.

[Clodfobble]

Well, that's the problem--the intention is definitely humor, but the kids in question don't have a great sense of humor. They're constantly looking for the "trick" behind everything everyone says. My response is to be straightforward instead, his is to persist with the humor in the hope that they'll lighten up someday. We'll see.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

All in all, I end up agreeing with V here. I've been asked before to dumb it down, and have firmly turned down every such request as ill advised, and shall always. If I write the English of an educated man, where's the downside in someone reading like one?

Requests to be as stupid as someone else thinks they need me to be I deny as a matter of course. Some people are lame enough to think this arrogant.

Well, that's enough with the splenetics.

Back at an older part of the thread, I was taught "offen" by simply everyone, parents and teachers alike. Pronouncing the T, while accepted by Webster's 3rd among others, seems to me unnecessarily affected. Affectation is usually unnecessary, come to that. Half-brights, I say, and I say it with confidence, DanaC. I expect I shall continue to twit you from time to time over your fits of notwithitness -- do recall which of us is the socialist at our age, and which of us is not. You aren't the one to shake me, try though you may.

[DanaC]

Affectation is usually unnecessary, come to that. Half-brights, I say, and I say it with confidence, DanaC.

Am I the only one who sees the irony in that?

@ UG. It isn't affectation if it's the way you've been taught to say the word by everybody around you. It would be an affectation were I, or Sundae, to start pronouncing it offen. In much the same way that it would be an affectation for you to start pronouncing it often. You've just accused most of the British nation of being half-brights because they pronounce a word differently to the way you (an American) pronounce the word. What an utterly ludicrous position to take. Even for a man of your arrogance that is wholly preposterous.

I expect I shall continue to twit you from time to time over your fits of notwithitness --

I expect you shall. And I expect I shall continue to twat you from time to time over your fits of pomposity.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, I suppose you're the one who imagines the irony. Will that do?

[Cicero]

I am anxious and eager to pick up my puppy today!!! Yea! Mostly eager....