Topic: Arguing semantics...
metalwing's photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:14 PM

Personal semantic pet peeve: the word "comprise".

Its rarely used correctly, and this irritates me. It seems like no one knows what this word means, and many use it as if they do. Unlike other words that are adapted, nothing is gained by abusing this word (there is no 'hole' in our language being filled...). Plus, people are using it for the exact opposite of what it means - they often mean 'compose'... we already have the word compose, thank you.

It reminds me of 'irregardless', but thats doesn't bother me, it just amuses me to no end. I'm giggling right now. Hey, lets add another syllable, use the word in exactly the opposite of its meaning, and somehow think we sound smarter for doing so. Lets utilize that paradigm.

Oh, and it looks like, as usual, the majority rules and logic loses - apparently some dictionaries suggest that 'irregardless' means the same as 'regardless'.


Commercially produced ice cream is comprised of ingredients unrelated and unfamiliar to the home chef. Their song of lament was composed after their reaction to carrageenan.

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:34 PM


Personal semantic pet peeve: the word "comprise".

Its rarely used correctly, and this irritates me. It seems like no one knows what this word means, and many use it as if they do. Unlike other words that are adapted, nothing is gained by abusing this word (there is no 'hole' in our language being filled...). Plus, people are using it for the exact opposite of what it means - they often mean 'compose'... we already have the word compose, thank you.

It reminds me of 'irregardless', but thats doesn't bother me, it just amuses me to no end. I'm giggling right now. Hey, lets add another syllable, use the word in exactly the opposite of its meaning, and somehow think we sound smarter for doing so. Lets utilize that paradigm.

Oh, and it looks like, as usual, the majority rules and logic loses - apparently some dictionaries suggest that 'irregardless' means the same as 'regardless'.
Well what could it mean.

Regard
Regardless
Irregardless?? WTF mate.


Bushido,

I don't understand your post. I'm sure you are already aware of the fact that "ir-" as a prefix often implies negation. "-less" as a suffix (afaik) always implies negation.

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:35 PM


Commercially produced ice cream is comprised of ingredients unrelated and unfamiliar to the home chef. Their song of lament was composed after their reaction to carrageenan.


drinker

laugh laugh laugh laugh


no photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:36 PM
I just noticed someone used 'irregardless' in these forums, with the same intended meaning as 'regardless'... (1) I wasn't aware of this when I made my general comment above (so this wasn't directed at them), and (2) according to some dictionaries, they are correct.

SkyHook5652's photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:44 PM
Personal semantic pet peeve: the word "comprise".

Its rarely used correctly, and this irritates me. It seems like no one knows what this word means, and many use it as if they do. Unlike other words that are adapted, nothing is gained by abusing this word (there is no 'hole' in our language being filled...). Plus, people are using it for the exact opposite of what it means - they often mean 'compose'... we already have the word compose, thank you.

It reminds me of 'irregardless', but thats doesn't bother me, it just amuses me to no end. I'm giggling right now. Hey, lets add another syllable, use the word in exactly the opposite of its meaning, and somehow think we sound smarter for doing so. Lets utilize that paradigm.

Oh, and it looks like, as usual, the majority rules and logic loses - apparently some dictionaries suggest that 'irregardless' means the same as 'regardless'.
I'm not sure that logic should even be a consideration when discussin language and semantics. About the only word/meaning pairs that could truly be considered "logical" are onomatopoeic words.

Just a thought. drinker

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:49 PM

Personal semantic pet peeve: the word "comprise".

Its rarely used correctly, and this irritates me. It seems like no one knows what this word means, and many use it as if they do. Unlike other words that are adapted, nothing is gained by abusing this word (there is no 'hole' in our language being filled...). Plus, people are using it for the exact opposite of what it means - they often mean 'compose'... we already have the word compose, thank you.

It reminds me of 'irregardless', but thats doesn't bother me, it just amuses me to no end. I'm giggling right now. Hey, lets add another syllable, use the word in exactly the opposite of its meaning, and somehow think we sound smarter for doing so. Lets utilize that paradigm.

Oh, and it looks like, as usual, the majority rules and logic loses - apparently some dictionaries suggest that 'irregardless' means the same as 'regardless'.
I'm not sure that logic should even be a consideration when discussin language and semantics. About the only word/meaning pairs that could truly be considered "logical" are onomatopoeic words.

Just a thought. drinker


So you think its perfectly fine to use the word waterless to mean 'filled with water' ? Or antiracist to mean 'supporting racism' ?


SkyHook5652's photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:50 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Thu 12/03/09 03:51 PM
Personal semantic pet peeve: the word "comprise".

Its rarely used correctly, and this irritates me. It seems like no one knows what this word means, and many use it as if they do. Unlike other words that are adapted, nothing is gained by abusing this word (there is no 'hole' in our language being filled...). Plus, people are using it for the exact opposite of what it means - they often mean 'compose'... we already have the word compose, thank you.

It reminds me of 'irregardless', but thats doesn't bother me, it just amuses me to no end. I'm giggling right now. Hey, lets add another syllable, use the word in exactly the opposite of its meaning, and somehow think we sound smarter for doing so. Lets utilize that paradigm.

Oh, and it looks like, as usual, the majority rules and logic loses - apparently some dictionaries suggest that 'irregardless' means the same as 'regardless'.
Well what could it mean.

Regard
Regardless
Irregardless?? WTF mate.
And why is there no "irregard" or "disregardless" :laughing:

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:51 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/03/09 03:52 PM

Personal semantic pet peeve: the word "comprise".

Its rarely used correctly, and this irritates me. It seems like no one knows what this word means, and many use it as if they do. Unlike other words that are adapted, nothing is gained by abusing this word (there is no 'hole' in our language being filled...). Plus, people are using it for the exact opposite of what it means - they often mean 'compose'... we already have the word compose, thank you.

It reminds me of 'irregardless', but thats doesn't bother me, it just amuses me to no end. I'm giggling right now. Hey, lets add another syllable, use the word in exactly the opposite of its meaning, and somehow think we sound smarter for doing so. Lets utilize that paradigm.

Oh, and it looks like, as usual, the majority rules and logic loses - apparently some dictionaries suggest that 'irregardless' means the same as 'regardless'.
Well what could it mean.

Regard
Regardless
Irregardless?? WTF mate.
And why is there no "irregard" or "diregardless" :laughing:
RIGHT?

I think the nail was struck cleanly when it was said that these words are created and used for no better purpose then to feel smart for using words that no one understands.

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:54 PM
I'm not sure that logic should even be a consideration when discussin language and semantics. About the only word/meaning pairs that could truly be considered "logical" are onomatopoeic words.

Just a thought. drinker


I've noticed a lot of people confusing the word 'logical' with 'sensible' in these threads in the last week or so - talking about what is 'logically' possible and such.

Most of the time, when a suffixes or prefixes is added to a word to create a new word, that new word's meaning is derived from the base word and the suffix/prefix according to rules. It is these rules which are normally applied in a logical manner.

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 03:57 PM

I think the nail was struck cleanly when it was said that these words are created and used for no better purpose then to feel smart for using words that no one understands.


For many people, 'smart sounding' words are created and used to achieve greater clarity and brevity. For others, they are used to sound smart - which is hilarious to me in the case of 'irregardless'. I suppose you are correct about people using words to 'feel smart', but it seems far more frequent to me that these people are more concerned with how they appear to others than how they feel about themselves.

metalwing's photo
Thu 12/03/09 04:13 PM


I think the nail was struck cleanly when it was said that these words are created and used for no better purpose then to feel smart for using words that no one understands.


For many people, 'smart sounding' words are created and used to achieve greater clarity and brevity. For others, they are used to sound smart - which is hilarious to me in the case of 'irregardless'. I suppose you are correct about people using words to 'feel smart', but it seems far more frequent to me that these people are more concerned with how they appear to others than how they feel about themselves.


Indubitably!

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 04:15 PM
"...which is hilarious to me in the case of 'irregardless'... "

..and also in the case of 'utilize'. One day I think I will start using that word, though, just to fit in to certain circles. Wouldn't want to sound 'less professional' or worse 'less smart' for using a perfectly good work like 'use' when I could use more syllables and say 'utilize'.


Seriously - is there any 'added meaning' to the word 'utilize'? (vs use?) This is a serious question. I have the feeling that there must be, and that it simply escapes me.

metalwing's photo
Thu 12/03/09 04:27 PM

"...which is hilarious to me in the case of 'irregardless'... "

..and also in the case of 'utilize'. One day I think I will start using that word, though, just to fit in to certain circles. Wouldn't want to sound 'less professional' or worse 'less smart' for using a perfectly good work like 'use' when I could use more syllables and say 'utilize'.


Seriously - is there any 'added meaning' to the word 'utilize'? (vs use?) This is a serious question. I have the feeling that there must be, and that it simply escapes me.


The utilization of cross chain polymers for molecular bonding increases resistance to ultraviolet degradation by broadening the spectrum of radiation blockage as opposed to the use of a single polymer material.

The key element here is the word "utility" and it's derivations, and the verb "use".

IgorFrankensteen's photo
Thu 12/03/09 04:46 PM
I was GREATLY disappointed to learn relatively recently, that language is one of THE most democratically ruled parts of our lives. That is, the definition of a word is entirely up to the people who use it. If enough of them use it "wrong," then the "wrong" definition becomes one of the "right" ones.
And here I was SO looking forward to joining the Word Police Force.

It's all about communication. Ya just gotta keep trying different ways of saying what you want to say, until you are understood.

One of my favorite examples of how words come to have different meanings, includes:

"Flammable" which means EXACTLY the same thing as "INflammable."
"I could care less" means the same thing as "I couldn't care less."

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 04:52 PM


I think the nail was struck cleanly when it was said that these words are created and used for no better purpose then to feel smart for using words that no one understands.


For many people, 'smart sounding' words are created and used to achieve greater clarity and brevity. For others, they are used to sound smart - which is hilarious to me in the case of 'irregardless'. I suppose you are correct about people using words to 'feel smart', but it seems far more frequent to me that these people are more concerned with how they appear to others than how they feel about themselves.
Probably closer to the mark. The relationship between self image and feelings is likely closely related in this context.

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 04:54 PM
Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Thu 12/03/09 04:59 PM

I was GREATLY disappointed to learn relatively recently, that language is one of THE most democratically ruled parts of our lives. That is, the definition of a word is entirely up to the people who use it. If enough of them use it "wrong," then the "wrong" definition becomes one of the "right" ones.
And here I was SO looking forward to joining the Word Police Force.

It's all about communication. Ya just gotta keep trying different ways of saying what you want to say, until you are understood.

One of my favorite examples of how words come to have different meanings, includes:

"Flammable" which means EXACTLY the same thing as "INflammable."
"I could care less" means the same thing as "I couldn't care less."
I always take "I could care less", to mean give me a chance I can actually care less. For me its telling someone to get lost before I start caring less.

I couldn't care less really means the care is minimal already.

Perhaps I am too literal.

metalwing's photo
Thu 12/03/09 04:54 PM

I was GREATLY disappointed to learn relatively recently, that language is one of THE most democratically ruled parts of our lives. That is, the definition of a word is entirely up to the people who use it. If enough of them use it "wrong," then the "wrong" definition becomes one of the "right" ones.
And here I was SO looking forward to joining the Word Police Force.

It's all about communication. Ya just gotta keep trying different ways of saying what you want to say, until you are understood.

One of my favorite examples of how words come to have different meanings, includes:

"Flammable" which means EXACTLY the same thing as "INflammable."
"I could care less" means the same thing as "I couldn't care less."


"Say it ain't so ..."

no photo
Thu 12/03/09 07:46 PM
Inflammable/flammable is another great one! There must be a website somewhere dedicated to these.


Sky, I agree that in certain areas its just unreasonable to expect language to be logical.



Metal, I can't tell how serious you are being. When I reread that sentence using the word 'use' in place of 'utilize' there is no loss nor change of meaning for me.

When I switch out 'plastic' for 'polymer', 'attachment' for 'bonding', 'damage' for 'degradation' - in all of those cases I feel there is a loss or change of meaning, even if subtle.


Bushido wrote:

Probably closer to the mark. The relationship between self image and feelings is likely closely related in this context.


Sorry, I was having an attack of paranoia of being misunderstood - I didn't mean to mince words regarding your point - which I do agree with.

metalwing's photo
Thu 12/03/09 11:00 PM


Metal, I can't tell how serious you are being. When I reread that sentence using the word 'use' in place of 'utilize' there is no loss nor change of meaning for me.

When I switch out 'plastic' for 'polymer', 'attachment' for 'bonding', 'damage' for 'degradation' - in all of those cases I feel there is a loss or change of meaning, even if subtle.





I thought I explained it. It is in the semantics. A product, tool, or device can have a use, but not necessarily be utilitarian even if used in almost identical circumstances.

Batman did not have a use belt.

creativesoul's photo
Thu 12/03/09 11:21 PM
I can use a method or any other tool without utilizing all of it's possible benefits. To utilize something is to use it in the best way possible...

Right?