Reading a string of unknown size

[CBFalconer]

This is a false conclusion. Just becase thousands of ignoramuses
think "enormity" is a symonym for "huge", don't make it so.

Or that someone who indulges in physical exercise is an
"athalete". Or that a power pile (a silly way to boil water) is a
"nucular" reactor. Or that "fast" means "quickly". I may have to
give up on the last, I even caught Winston Chuchill using it.
Sigh.

 

[pete]

This is a false conclusion. Just becase thousands of ignoramuses think
"enormity" is a symonym for "huge", don't make it so.


to an extent, but only to an extent, and always in broad terms not
colloquial ones.


true

If by "many people", Old Wolf means "the majority",
then I'm with Old Wolf on this one.

 

[Richard Tobin]

Or that "fast" means "quickly". I may have to
give up on the last, I even caught Winston Chuchill using it.

What grounds could you possibly have for denying it? The OED has
quotations back to c1205.

-- Richard

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Tobin said:

What grounds could you possibly have for denying it? The OED has
quotations back to c1205.

1205 was only about eighty minutes ago. I don't know whether to be appalled
that you are relying on such a short usage history or impressed at how up
to date your copy of OED is.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

If by "many people", Old Wolf means "the majority",
then I'm with Old Wolf on this one.

Tell that to any random majority whose language forms were suppressed
by central authority. I dunno, Scousers say.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Tobin]

If by "many people", Old Wolf means "the majority",
then I'm with Old Wolf on this one.

[/QUOTE]

Tell that to any random majority whose language forms were suppressed
by central authority. I dunno, Scousers say.

Suppression by central authority is the opposite of what Old Wolf was
talking about. If people use "enormity" to mean great size, that's
what it means, regardless of central authority's view. If they try to
change - or preserve - the language they may or may not succeed: it
depends whether people obey them.

In the case of "enormity" I can't see any reason to prefer the older
meaning. "Enormous" now unambiguously means huge, so why should
"enormity" mean something different? And of course the
central-authority-approved meaning - monstrous wickedness - does not
correspond to the etymology, which would simply imply "outside the
norm" without any particular negative or moral connotation.

-- Richard

 

[Mark McIntyre]

talking about. If people use "enormity" to mean great size, that's
what it means, regardless of central authority's view.

absolute rubbish.

In the case of "enormity" I can't see any reason to prefer the older
meaning.

then apparently you're an ignoramus.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Default User]

absolute rubbish.

That's the way language works.

then apparently you're an ignoramus.

Do you use "girl" to mean a young person of either sex? It used to mean
that. "Awful" used to mean exclusively "inspiring awe", now it has come
to disagreeable or offensive. Are people who prefer that over the
original ignoramuses?




Brian

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Do you use "girl" to mean a young person of either sex? It used to
mean that. "Awful" used to mean exclusively "inspiring awe", now it
has come to disagreeable or offensive. Are people who prefer that
over the original ignoramuses?

Are you possibly confusing "awesome" and "awful"?

 

[Richard Tobin]

Do you use "girl" to mean a young person of either sex? It used to
mean that. "Awful" used to mean exclusively "inspiring awe", now it
has come to disagreeable or offensive. Are people who prefer that
over the original ignoramuses?

[/QUOTE]

Are you possibly confusing "awesome" and "awful"?

No, he's not. That is the original meaning of "awful".

"Awesome" is now experiencing a similar change (though in a more
positive direction). Whether it will result in "awesome" meaning
merely "good", or whether it is just a passing fad, remains to be
seen.

-- Richard

 

[Default User]

Are you possibly confusing "awesome" and "awful"?

Nope. There's the oft-quoted remark (whether true or not is not clear)
from Queen Anne regarding Christopher Wren's work on St. Paul's
Cathedral, where she described it as "awful, artificial and amusing."

This might seem disparaging, but "awful" meant "awe-inspiring",
"artificial" was "clever" or "artistic", and "amusing" meant something
like "riveting".




Brian

 

[Richard Bos]

Nope. There's the oft-quoted remark (whether true or not is not clear)
from Queen Anne regarding Christopher Wren's work on St. Paul's
Cathedral, where she described it as "awful, artificial and amusing."

This might seem disparaging, but "awful" meant "awe-inspiring",
"artificial" was "clever" or "artistic", and "amusing" meant something
like "riveting".

True, but unlike "enormity" and "redundant", those are never used in the
old meaning any more.

Richard