this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
108 points (94.3% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1487 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Please don't think I'm here to complain about rizz or skibidi toilet etc. Thats all fine by me.

The term I dislike strongly is 'eeeh' before you make a statement disagreeing with someone. (This is over text only). Now maybe I've been pavloved bc it's always used by someone disagreeing. But I'm happy with people disagreeing with me normally its just the 'eeeh' or 'erm' that annoys me.

So what's a random term that annoys you?

PS. Saying "eeeh actually 'eeh' is a perfectly fine term" would be a ridiculously easy joke and I will judge you for making it. And I know atleast one person will. Especially bow that I've said all this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] roscoe@startrek.website 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Bemused

It's used incorrectly so often that even when I suspect it's being used correctly I can't be sure. At this point its ambiguity makes it a bad word choice.

[โ€“] miracleorange@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Me with nonplussed. I have a friend who uses it and he says it in situations that are ambiguous enough that I can't tell if he actually knows what it means.

[โ€“] roscoe@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago

Yup, that's another one. I think that one is even worse because the new usage makes it a contranym. Dictionaries are starting to include the new usage of that one too. Unless you have a reason to be pretty sure the author/speaker knows the correct definition, it can be difficult to tell.

[โ€“] bunkyprewster@startrek.website 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

What's the correct usage? and the wrong one you've been hearing?

[โ€“] roscoe@startrek.website 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It means puzzled and/or confused.

Many authors seem to think it means amused mixed with some confusion or puzzlement or something else like that.

Some dictionaries have started to include definitions along those lines, which is correct to do if that is becoming a common usage. But that makes the word bullshit because it no longer conveys a clear meaning. Unlike some words that gain new meanings through misuse, it's usually not clear which meaning is intended from context. Usually I can easily imagine a character's response to something to be either of these definitions so I often can't understand the author's intention. I often find myself taken out of the story while I try to understand which meaning I should use. Because of this I think the word has become useless and shouldn't be used.

[โ€“] frauddogg@hexbear.net 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Many authors seem to think it means amused mixed with some confusion or puzzlement or something else like that.

I actually kind of blame that abominable terf Joanne Rowling for this one; I know I've seen her use this word a dozen different ways that never line up with each other back in the day before we knew the Harry Potter woman was about as hateful as a southern Baptist

It means something in the vein of confused but people think it means amused