First recorded in 1835, per etymonline. The evolution of meaning of the root word is fascinating in itself.
4 Likes
Looks as though “snobbish” is the neologism…
3 Likes
What I am sure I have experienced over the decades, then, is the neologism being superseded by its predecessor.
5 Likes
Or some stubborn types ignoring new-fangled words, saying “we never said that in my family” and slowly drawing the rest of the world with them.
I’m not one such: I’d’ve said snobbish, without thinking about it, but for this thread. Now I shall have a Terrible Dilemma every time.
5 Likes
Meanwhile, sheer galloping ignorance:
In A Very British Scandal, which is set in 1963, the BBC scriptwriter has one of the educated characters say “This battle between you and I, we have to stop…”
No educated English person in 1963 would have used “I” in that sentence.
(The hussy responsible has a whole page about it: BBC Blogs - BBC Writersroom - Introducing A Very British Scandal )
4 Likes
Another which has struck me a few times of late is the misuse of “rankle”. A thing rankles, for instance injustice rankles with the person who has been unjustly treated. The person it rankles with, however, does not rankle. They may bristle or feel ill-done-by or any one of a number of other things, but they do not rankle. Well, their existence might rankle, with somebody else…
The word means “to cause bitterness or irritation”, so a person does not do it about something or somebody. Jane does not rankle at the mention of Sarah.
5 Likes
Urgh. Hadn’t come across that one. I expect I will find it everywhere now, for a few days.
while we’re on R, one that is past praying for but which I nevertheless deplore is the blurring of ‘reticent’ and ‘reluctant’.
5 Likes
Oh Ghu yes, he was reticent to accuse anyone. Argh.
It’s all very like small children who have heard a word and got the context a little wrong, but want to use it because it is a Big and Important-Sounding word.
5 Likes
That is how must people acquire language most of the time.
5 Likes
Yes, but in face-to-face contact people say, “that means x” to children so that they discover the real meaning of the words they have picked up. In social media they don’t, because that would be condemned as grammar-shaming or snobbery or something.
Same with pronunciations, only more so because on social media you can’t easily see that someone is pronouncing antipodes anti-podes and correct their incorrect impression.
3 Likes
5 Likes
Dear oh dear oh dearie dearie me.
5 Likes
I’ll just leave this here.
“Saturday, however, offered a unique window into a key tenant of the Black experience.”
Along with another gem later on in the same article:
“art and struggle are one in the same”
4 Likes
Just spotted in the wild:
WOODEN SHELF UNIT - UNIQUE & RARE
6 Likes
‘wearing shorts […] would be considered frivalent at a funeral.’
I bloody love ‘frivalent’ but what were they shooting for? ‘Frivolous’ is the obvious one, but I don’t think they meant that.
Anyway, am adopting ‘frivalent’.
3 Likes
Frivalent is two more than trivalent.
3 Likes
I think they were shooting for “frivolent”, which (perhaps regrettably) seems to exist.
3 Likes
…as a ‘non-standard’ back-formation.
3 Likes
Yes, but that’s how the language evolves. I mean, it really is, not just the “someone made a mistake so we shall claim it was dialect” sort of evolution.
All back-formations were non-standard once.
3 Likes
In the Quasimodo sense?
3 Likes