this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
763 points (98.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

6508 readers
3367 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hakase@lemm.ee 48 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

"Edit" and "access" also weren't originally verbs. Same with "babysit" and "eavesdrop". Backformation and category changing are common and perfectly natural processes in English.

Edit: This isn't directed at the OP of this comment chain, but I'm always surprised by the crazy amount of ignorant prescriptivism I see all over Lemmy. Like, I expected that shit on Reddit, but I thought we were better than that here, especially since literally the only real reason for prescriptivism is sowing class division and excluding people for not having access to the secret knowledge of "correct" (yuck!) grammar.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] hakase@lemm.ee 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Nope, I can do this all day. Other fun examples of backformation off the top of my head are: "to burgle" from "burglar" (which the Brits still get mad about), originally from the Latin agent noun burglator from the verb burgare; and "cherry", backformed from Old French cerise, which was reinterpreted as a plural (even though it wasn't one), and then a new singular form was backformed. The same thing happened to "pea" (though that's a native English word) - you can still see the original "pease" in the old nursery rhyme: "Pease porridge hot, pease porridge cold, pease porridge in a pot nine days old".

[–] FozzyOsbourne@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

We don't get mad about burgle, that's just a normal word. I do remember thinking I'd gone insane the first time I heard someone unironically use the word "burglarize" to mean "burgle" though!

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was making a joke with a modern example of a noun being verbified, but thank you for your insight.

[–] hakase@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Oh wow, I'm feeling very whooshed at the moment. Sorry about that.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I understand language changes over time but sometimes it's stupider than others

[–] hakase@lemm.ee 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

From your biased, subjective point of view that has nothing to do with the objective facts of language, maybe.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Objectively, any words with more than two vocals in succession is dumb and only meant for cheating at Scrabble, objectively

[–] shneancy@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

verbing a word that isn't commonly verbed? that's the main thing i love in the English langauge, the flexibility to fuck around with it and still be understood by others without having to explain what you're doing

[–] Slovene@feddit.nl 8 points 1 day ago

Now you're Englishing proper m8.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago

Literally didn't understand it

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Using the suffix -er for a two syllable word isn't any correcter than verbing a noun and would probably make quite a few English teachers red in the face.

Both have a linguistic use; the verb "vaguing" is a shortened form of the cumbersome "vague-posting", while "stupider" is a more emphatic and/of colloquial form of "more stupid". Neither can be replaced by their more formal form without changing the meaning of the sentence slightly.

Objectively they are very similar linguistic quirks, the only reason you'd use one but dislike the other is familiarity. Why dismiss it out of hand when you can excitedly marvel at a novel way people can remotely transfer thoughts?

[–] yukijoou@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

i mean, you understood the meaning of the sentence, right? so the person managed to get their point accross, and saved on length by using that form - that's actually quite linguistically clever!

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 4 points 1 day ago

I got an idea that the person was venting/ranting but couldn't understand the specifics of the term "vauguing". There's so many mistakes in their response that I just assumed it was a typo.

Looks likes it's a word that been around since the 1600s but is pretty much never used anymore.

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/vaguing_adj?tl=true&tab=factsheet

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

I could only guess the meaning. Disagree all around