digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

"Nonplussed" does NOT = unfazed (even if Obama said so)

chicagotribune.com — On a related note: "Consider "peruse," which technically means "to read with thoroughness and care" but in today's parlance has come to mean "pretending to skim magazines while waiting for someone you met on the Internet to meet you at the bookstore."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • alapoet, on 08/12/2008, -3/+33I love words!
  • YoYoBlah, on 08/12/2008, -3/+13Hilarious!
  • BrentDPayne, on 08/12/2008, -3/+31OMG, my head is spinning. I feel like my IQ just increased 10 points from this article alone. I need to go have a beer now and watch some Seinfeld to stop my head from exploding.
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Then don't go here:
      http://digg.com/odd_stuff/9_Words_That_Don_t_Mean_ ...
    • Alex2, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1You lost brain cells when they used the word Unlikely as a sentence. And then they started a sentence with 'But'.

      "Unlikely. But in the realm of vocabulary blunders committed by those who should know better, nonplussed is nonpareil."

      A true grammar nazi would have a field day with that article.


      • noumuon, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2i'd have to agree with the use of "unlikely" as a sentence in and of itself as being a stretch. even though it is still acceptable, i find it sophomoric. your second comment, however, has no grounds. starting a sentence with "but" is perfectly ok as long as it's being used in the conditional sense, which it is. it's actually far more proper than your second sentence beginning with "and," as their sentence is, in fact, not a fragment like yours.
    • ZenMojo, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3Would you say you're nonplussed?
  • ohnoerino, on 08/12/2008, -2/+58What about today's use of "literally"? It seems like most of the time people who use "literally" are really referring to something figuratively. Yes, I'm a big nerd.
    • acmaurer, on 08/12/2008, -2/+33yeah, you are. literally.
    • tcbishop12, on 08/12/2008, -0/+20From one big nerd to another: “Literally” has been so overused as a sort of vague intensifier that it is in danger of losing its "literal" meaning.

      It should be used to distinguish between a figurative and a literal meaning of a phrase. It should not be used as a synonym for “actually” or “really.”

      In other words, don’t say of someone that he “literally blew up” unless he swallowed a stick of dynamite.
      • Badandy127, on 08/12/2008, -9/+5Well, no, that's still wrong, unless he swallowed a stick of dynamite while LITERALLY blowing (expelling air out of his mouth, or something more perverse) in an upwards direction.
      • summer3317, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Or, ooh, ooh, how about qualifying "unique" as in "really unique"...you really can't get any more unique than unique. If it was more than unique, it wouldn't exist!
      • TheSeeker11, on 08/12/2008, -0/+14'Literally' is thrown around amongst TV chefs here in the UK on a regular basis. "Just literally place the steak into the pan." Gee, thanks for saying literally. If you hadn't, I would have stood there holding the steak, wondering what the hell to do with it.
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1You just said you shouldn't use "literally" in place of "actually" or "really" and then you gave an example of using it wrongly where "actually" and "really" don't fit. Guess you meant it should be used as a synonym for those two words...
    • palehorse864, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8Man I know. Everytime I hear someone misuse that word it literally makes my head explode!
      • thirdeyeopen666, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Not sure what you meant, but I'll assume you were trying to say asplode.
      • Meocross, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1is asplode seriously a word?
    • mithrasinvictus, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1What about "basically"?
    • wiihuck, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1definately
  • ColonelTribune, on 08/12/2008, -5/+20A good distinction to make, even if you're not a grammarian.
    • kaelyiesta, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1The whole word evolution vs misuse thing annoys me. It's perfectly acceptable to say someone misuses one word, but not another? Why is it that just because a ton of people make a mistake, suddenly the word is evolving instead of being just plain misused? I can see both sides of the argument( value determined by current human average belief vs not), but I lean toward a words meaning being independent of uninformed opinion. My punctuation errors, for example, are just that: errors. Just because most other people also fail to properly use punctuation doesn't mean its now correct does it? Again, I can see how tempting it is to say yes, but unless there is a willful informed decision to change whats currently correct, I am reluctant to accept it cannot be considered misuse.

      Intentional redefinition is one thing, but a mistake is a mistake.
  • dougvfr750, on 08/12/2008, -1/+20After reading that I feel so nonplussed
  • harryc3, on 08/12/2008, -3/+27Gay used to mean happy and carefree. Gothic referred to the middled ages and its architecture. Black was a colorless color. Niggardly meant stingy. Dis was the opposite of dat. Nonplus is the opposite of itself.
    • diggitydad, on 08/12/2008, -5/+0Don't you mean 'African-American' was a colorless color?

      Which 'begs the question' why do people say African-American when they mean black? 'Or Mac or PC' when a Mac IS a PC. Or think elite and elitist mean the same thing. Language evolves, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad ways.

      • PepeGSay, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1begs the question lol

        I hope those quotes are sarcasm
      • diggitydad, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Used specifically because of the article about the correct usage of the phrase that surfaced a while back.
    • ZenMojo, on 08/12/2008, -6/+1Actually, black is any color you want. It's a tint or a hue.
      • noumuon, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9not really... black is the absence of light. gray to white are then varying amounts of white light per volume. things become color when you start having more specific energy levels of photons per volume until you are left with just one specific energy level of photon which then becomes the full saturation of that color.

        the thing is, often when things are black, they are a shade of violet or blue usually with a very, very small amount of photons per volume.
    • LongShlong, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6You've made a lot of gay, niggardly blacks feel... Fazed.
    • niczar, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1I thought niggardly meant "hardly ever", isn't it an adverb? Stingy is an adjective.
  • bumcheekcity, on 08/12/2008, -18/+5Nobody. *****. Cares.
  • thebestever, on 08/12/2008, -11/+2what rhymes with digger?
  • monkeysama, on 08/12/2008, -4/+19Chicago Tribune reads cracked?

    http://www.cracked.com/article_15664_9-words-that- ...
    • sulthernao, on 08/12/2008, -7/+1Irregardless is a word...
      • Aidje, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6Only because people won't stop using it.
      • kylejn, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4You're right, it's perfectly cromulent.
      • PepeGSay, on 08/12/2008, -3/+0It's not just because people won't stop using it. It's because the words formation stems from a different place than the 'scholars' believed. While the scholarly belief was that it was the negation of regardless it is actually a blend of irrespective and regardless. There is other instances of words being formed this way, so it is gaining acceptance.
    • slugicide, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3Yeah, in all the years of publishing cracked.com was the first to have an article on words being used inappropriately. ***** monkey-kun.
  • tehxen3, on 08/12/2008, -9/+4Says who? Meanings change. Gay used to mean happy.
    • willynilly, on 08/12/2008, -4/+7Still does.

      And illiterates love to use this "meanings change" ***** to excuse their ignorance.
    • bdbr, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3Words can also have multiple definitions. Just because "gay" can be defined as happy doesn't mean it can't be defined as something else. When a word doesn't even show up as a valid definition in any dictionary, that's a different case altogether.
      • Iztikeit, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Dictionaries aren't the defining factor of what constitutes a "real" word.
    • brundlefly76, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3I don't know why you got dugg down, this was the point the linguistics professor made - that our language is not defined solely by Latin roots but also by our usage. If we decide we want to give a new meaning to nonplussed, we can do that through usage and not have to apologize to the Chicago Tribune.

      I think that's one of the things that makes language so interesting.
  • Setari, on 08/12/2008, -0/+12I always feel awkward when I use a word without knowing the definition for sure. Like I used a word entirely wrong or something, but I usually do alright.
    • Shivatron, on 08/12/2008, -0/+23I know how you feel. Every once in a while, I try to masturbate a large word into a conversation -- even if I don't know what it means -- in an effort to sound more intelligent.
  • kingofinternet, on 08/12/2008, -6/+2Ibold out of Pavement... Creative Interference... Unabomber Nonplussed
  • rinote, on 08/12/2008, -9/+3I am nonplussed by this article.
  • frsrblch, on 08/12/2008, -9/+15Nonplussed? Sounds like newspeak to me.
    • Scratkiller, on 08/12/2008, -1/+5yes! that's exactly what I thought, maybe there is still hope for digg.
    • slugicide, on 08/12/2008, -2/+5Those digging you down are morons.
    • Lunarbunny, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I always figured it was Newspeak, guess that's what I get for not taking Latin.
  • GregFD3S, on 08/12/2008, -10/+1Obama/Paul '08
    • mlvassallo, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2Strunk/White '08
      • fafnir314, on 08/12/2008, -1/+0You're brilliant
      • mlvassallo, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I thought it was pretty ***** clever. Apparently these kids don't own Elements of Style.
  • socalftw, on 08/12/2008, -0/+11El Guapo: Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.

    Jefe: Forgive me, El Guapo. I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
  • jwoelmer2, on 08/12/2008, -7/+2So what if Obama used it incorrectly? We all make mistakes at one time or another...
    • Iztikeit, on 08/12/2008, -6/+4When McCain makes a mistake the crazed left jump all over it.
      • tykwondingo, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1ugh, rant... to quantify anyone's beliefs in 'this or that' or a 'black or white' way is too easy. Be reasonable... because this childish *****: "When McCain makes a mistake the crazed left jump all over it." needs to stop.
      • michaelz92, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1He's right though. You guys only see the good in Obama and only see the bad in McCain.
      • Iztikeit, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1It is black and white. The Republican/Democrat system causes this, and I want no part of it.

        I'm condemning the entire system. Republican and Democrat is inherently "black and white".

        What's so complicated about that?
  • ashwinmudigonda, on 08/12/2008, -1/+17Obama's mistake in using one wrong word pales in comparison with McCain's usage of words.
    • fafnir314, on 08/12/2008, -2/+12At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollup, you *****
      • tykwondingo, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1I didn't want to digg that down because it's one of the best quotes I've ever seen and your usage was well timed but I had to. Even though both front-runners are just two sides to the same coin, I've still got to go with the lesser of two evils.
      • fafnir314, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1no hard feelings
    • ashwinmudigonda, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Vagina, you mean?
  • LukasSmith, on 08/12/2008, -7/+1McCain 08
  • rabbro, on 08/12/2008, -1/+9Faded memories of a Cracked article from not too long back...
  • DrLeePhD, on 08/12/2008, -1/+10The only reason this made the front page is because it had Obama in the title.
    The only reason the author wrote this is to show off his vocabulary.
    ... "Nonplussed is nonpareil" ...
    WTF mate?
    -------------------------------------------
    http://www.cracked.com/article_15664_9-words-that- ...
    "if any of your friends actually start using words like "nonplussed" in conversation, regardless of the meaning, they may deserve a good ***** punching..."
    • artofficial, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2It's true, right after reading the article, I had to tear out some chest hair and punch some guy in the face just to get my man status back up to par.
    • lisaawesome, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2I'm with the cracked quote. I am well read and have a good vocabulary but I have never once used the word nonplussed when speaking. I might use it when writing (a big might) but the way I speak and write are very different. If my friends started talking like a bunch of butt pirates I couldn't handle listening to it. You can speak well without sounding like a prick.
    • ohnoerino, on 08/13/2008, -0/+11. The author is a woman
      2. I know plenty of smart, witty women who use words like
      nonplussed and peruse.
      3. There are plenty of people all over the world who believe that diverse use of language is a benefit, not a detriment to good writing and conversation.
      4. Can you please explain why you want so badly to "punch" that part of the male anatomy?
  • bdbr, on 08/12/2008, -1/+5Big deal, a guy who couldn't even pronounce "nuclear" got elected twice.

    The whole point of language is to communicate, not to show off. He got the point across, but its probably just as well that we know what words really mean. The thing that really annoys me is when people complain about usage that is actually a secondary definition in most dictionaries (not just one online version).
  • brbubba, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1While we are at it, someone please ban the words "crabs" and "shrimps." Yes, I realize many present day dictionaries include these as acceptable plural terms, yet I can't get a straight answer as to why "lobsters" and other certain plurals of hunted animals are not acceptable.
    • noumuon, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1eh... i say lobsters and crabs... just not shrimps.
  • Garboldisham, on 08/12/2008, -2/+15Shallow and pedantic.
  • PabloMac, on 08/12/2008, -4/+3I have never, nor will I ever use "nonplussed" in a sentence.
  • Angostura, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Odd. Nonplussed crops up fairly regularly in the UK, but always with the meaning of bewildered or confused. How does it get used over there? I use it quite a lot, it's not particularly posy.

    • ileftfark, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3In the US, most people say to mean "not impressed" or "unexcited". I try to keep my inner grammar Nazi from raging, but if you're going to use a "fifty cent word", ffs use it properly.
  • ileftfark, on 08/12/2008, -2/+9A perfectly cromulent argument.
  • palehorse864, on 08/12/2008, -1/+5This just in, Barack Obama loves to see his daughters completely confused.
  • Alex2, on 08/12/2008, -3/+11English is a living language. It's the current use of a word that defines it's current definition. The dictionary guys at Oxford English Dictionary track how the word is used and keep citations.

    It doesn't matter so much what the Greeks or Romans defined a word as, but rather how we use the word today.

    Today's usage: nonplussed ~ unfazed.
    • nepidae, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1Using words incorrectly really plusses me some times.
  • KUKBAHLAM, on 08/12/2008, -2/+9Spoken language is a dynamic process. Did the majority of people who heard the comment understand what he meant? Then his use of the word represents a successful communication. Language can and does rapidly change. Grammar Nazis should stick to print.

    Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes. - You wouldn't have to Google it if language were static! (Ha Ha. Google is now a verb)
  • jimrooney, on 08/12/2008, -3/+2Grammar Nazi's Unite!
    • B08ama, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Which is funny, because you used unnecessary capitalization in "unite" and an apostrophe.
  • EvansHall, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4Using "nonplussed" to mean "unfazed" is a perfectly cromulent usage of the word.
  • EquesArdor, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4To say that a new definition has been widespread and verified, and then knock Obama for using said "new definition" is a little ridiculous.
  • Spoomeister, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Listen to sports broadcasters sometime - "have their work cut out for them" used to mean something was easy. Now it means it's difficult. I have no idea how that changed or why.

    And of course, obligatory George Carlin: "Sometime in my lifetime, partly cloudy became partly sunny."
    • ZenMojo, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1The love of double negatives has destroyed English and made the masses nonplussed.
  • aftern9ne, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Is it correct to capitalize "NOT" and follow up with a mathematical symbol?

    Language isn't as strict as you want it to be, now is it?
  • notalemming, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1I think Chris Morris made up that word on Brass Eye. (news satire)
  • juniperlater, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3White people like grammar.

    http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/12/99-gram ...
    • PolishLogic, on 08/12/2008, -1/+2Well, somebody ought to.

      Hilarious site, btw.
  • HMMcKamikaze, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2We have the word "disgruntled", but whatever happened to "gruntled"?
  • nirvanix, on 08/12/2008, -3/+6Actually common usage dictates the meaning of a word and always has, That's because languages are not stagnant.
    Also, I learned yesterday on Digg that orchid means 'testicles' - how cool is that.

  • Browzer, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Inflammable = something that can catch on fire.

    It's true.
    • MWeather, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1It's perfectly incomprehensible.
    • logosx1, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0Makes perfect sense considering the infinitive "to inflame."
  • peaceninja, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4people who think words should always maintain the same meaning despite society adopting the change are anti-evolutionists......they are linguistic creationists!!!
    • tmaromine, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Oops. At last millisecond my cursor hit the thumbs down when it was supposed to hit green! So, yeah, sorry. Thumbs up. And I agree.
  • Hiwnes, on 08/13/2008, -2/+2I'm constantly surprised by the number of educated people who don't know crap about linguistics....

    The purpose of language is to communicate. News flash: words don't have set definitions no matter what your grammar teacher wants to tell you. But the dictionary says so you say? A dictionary is only an historic compendium of how a sequence of sounds has been used in the past. Words derive their meaning from context. Yes, educated tend to speak a certain way but that, to the horror of all elite bastards, doesn't make them more right. The important test is whether the message was conveyed with minimal confusion.


    • kingfelix, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2It's no use. I've tried persuading them many times before. Diggers aren't interested in linguistics, only prescriptive grammar nonsense. So many people really are "linguistic creationists," as peaceninja said above.

      Here's the Language Log article referenced by the author:
      http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=453
    • JakeyG14, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1"Linguistics", is that even a word?

      Check-and-mate.
  • tortov, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Mark Liberman wrote a couple posts at Language Log about this:
    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=453
    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=461

    It seems to me like a rather natural semantic shift, essentially from "not reacting due to confusion" to "not reacting as one isn't fazed". The external behavior of someone who's nonplussed in the older sense and someone who's nonplussed in the newer sense is often the same.
  • tehxen3, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1I think Diggers may have Asperger syndrome.
    "Children with AS may have an unusually sophisticated vocabulary at a young age and have been colloquially called "little professors", but have difficulty understanding figurative language and tend to use language literally"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome ...
  • peacenik, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5This article says more about the person writing it than anything else. The country and its leadership is operating at a fourth grade reading level and this person is whining about the colloquial use of the word "nonplussed"? Of the things in the world of language that are worth having a good rant about, this is embarrassing and sad.
  • philhatesyou, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5English is a living language. The words mean what the users of the language understand them to mean.
    • logosx1, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0Kind of like our "living Constitution," a euphemism for a dying Constitution.
  • sparsely, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1@tykwondingo: what a strange conclusion to arrive at, given your stated view.
    Tell me, do you consider tails to be lesser than heads?
  • CosmicJustice, on 08/13/2008, -2/+2`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
    `I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
    `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
    `When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
    `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
    `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
  • GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2philhatesyou is exactly right. Languages evolve. The meaning of words change. It doesn't excuse improper use of words entirely, but when deciding what IS proper use I would say it is okay to leave it up to a vote. The meaning of a word is that meaning which most agree on.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.