We are not bemused

[Snarky]

Personally, I can't really remember ever laughing-out-loud while playing an adventure game.  Perhaps others do.  I was never one who laughed at Warner Brothers cartoons either, and I was always bemused by the laughter of others.  ...and that might be the word that I'd use to describe my feelings toward what I would consider a comedy adventure game: bemused. Or at the very least, a feeling between amused and bemused -- a sort of "wry amusement."

No, it's not the word. "Bemused" means puzzled, confused, not "wryly amused".

[Snarky]

  Well, I guess we'll just have to let the writers of dictionaries duke it out.  Definition three on your link and the one below, given without survey results, describe my feeling well.  I did intentionally use the word to mean confusion before using to mean "wryly amused." 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bemused

Merriam-Webster are, rather prematurely in my opinion, endorsing a recent misuse of the word. To do so without comment strikes me as something close to professional misconduct. (It's perfectly fine to mention â€" although most dictionaries don't â€" that the word is nowadays used in this sense by many people, but it should then also be pointed out that it is historically incorrect, and considered unacceptable by most competent authorities. To do otherwise is to offer bad guidance to your users.)

Overall I consider M-W a pretty poor dictionary, and much prefer http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ (which combines American Heritage, Collins, RHK Webster's and others), or OED.com if you have access. Wiktionary.org is better as well.

[TheBitPriest]

Thanks, Snarky.  While you were posting, I edited my post to keep the thread on-topic.  You're welcome to PM me to continue the conversation.

[Mandle]

I have personally always understood the word to mean "confused" but here is an interesting viewpoint from this source:

As The Times's stylebook says, in careful, traditional use, “bemused” means “bewildered,” “confused” or even “stupefied.” An extended meaning is “preoccupied, lost in thought.”

But the similarity in sound to “amused” leads many writers to merge the meaning of the two words, using “bemused” to suggest a sort of detached amusement. A few dictionaries have started to accept this as an alternate sense.

Such shifts in meaning based on an initial misunderstanding are common as the language evolves. Sometimes the derived use becomes so widespread and accepted that it's pedantic and pointless to insist on only the original sense. For instance, not long ago we dropped our stylebook's longtime admonition against using “careen” â€" rather than “career” â€" in the sense of “lurch along wildly at high speed.” The original distinction had eroded so completely that there was little to gain in clinging to it.

But there's a reason to go slowly on such changes. Preserving the original sense of a word like “bemused” gives the careful writer an additional, precise tool. When its meaning starts to blur or merge with another word's, the result, at least for a while, is confusion and a loss of variety.

So let's try to hold the line on “bemused.”

So yeah, it does appear (in this writer's opinion at least) that the word's meaning is slowly evolving away from the original one. But then he goes on to basically say "Let's stop doing that", even though he says earlier that this is the natural way languages evolve...

Confusing article in all, but kind of supports both points of view...

EDIT: Posted before I saw the last comment above. I also won't be posting any further on "bemused". Anything further I post will be on topic. Sorry.

[Snarky]

Thanks, Snarky.  While you were posting, I edited my post to keep the thread on-topic.  You're welcome to PM me to continue the conversation.

Oh, we can do better than that. It's now its own thread.

So yeah, it does appear (in this writer's opinion at least) that the word's meaning is slowly evolving away from the original one. But then he goes on to basically say "Let's stop doing that", even though he says earlier that this is the natural way languages evolve...

Languages do evolve, certainly. However, most changes in meaning are either gradual slides across related ideas ("pretty" once meant "clever", then came to mean "fine" in general, and eventually "physically attractive"; "decimate" has been generalized to other proportions of destruction than 10%), or reasonable new uses based on analysis of the word itself and analogies with similar ones (as with "hopefully" and "momentarily"). It's the exception when a word suddenly takes on a completely different meaning, simply because people misunderstand it or mistake it for another one (career/careen is one of the few). That's not so much a matter of "evolving" as making a rift.

There may come a time when the original meaning of "bemused" is completely archaic, and only cranks will continue to insist on it. But that time has not yet come, and it is not inevitable that it will. Trends can be reversed, and if more people are made aware of what "bemused" really means, the misuse may abate. (If generations could be brainwashed into believing the nonsense against split infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, surely they can be taught a pretty little word like "bemused".)

[Gurok]

Merriam-Webster lost all credit with me when they agreed with Alanis Morissette. http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0035-ironic.html

[Baron]

I am submused by your Académie-esque lingo-pedantry.  English doesn't obey your rules, Man!  It does what it wants.

[tzachs]

This thread bemuses me.

I want to try and tackle this from a different direction, and provide a more compelling reason to change the meaning of bemused: the original meaning has more popular synonyms- confused, puzzled, perplexed.
On the other hand, there is no word for "detached amusement", and there should be. So in that sense the language is evolving by becoming richer.

Edit: oh, pretty much what Baron said...

[monkey424]

My stupid mate used to substitute ‘bemused' for ‘amused' in sentences which I'm sure he found hilarious. I found it mildly amusing.

[Snarky]

I want to try and tackle this from a different direction, and provide a more compelling reason to change the meaning of bemused: the original meaning has more popular synonyms- confused, puzzled, perplexed.
On the other hand, there is no word for "detached amusement", and there should be. So in that sense the language is evolving by becoming richer.

In 90% of cases, "amused" by itself will do the job. (To say one was amused by something, rather than "found it funny", indicates a certain degree of detachment by itself.) "Wry" will also usually fit such an attitude of ironic detachment, and pronouncing something "droll" (or "how very droll") often carries much the same connotation.

I am submused by your Académie-esque lingo-pedantry.  English doesn't obey your rules, Man!  It does what it wants.

Yes and no. English behaves as English-speakers use it, and while that vast body of people cannot be commanded, it can be influenced. The usage only arose because people didn't know the word and took a guess; if we can raise awareness (at least among professional and careful writers) that the interpretation is a mistake, the trend could conceivably be turned.

I'm a descriptivist, but I don't think that obliges me to think everything said by anyone is equally respectable. "A criteria", "a phenomena" and "an alumni" are wrong, although they're probably on their way to becoming accepted. "Could of" instead of "could have" is wrong, and will probably remain wrong even as some people continue to misuse it. I recently read about "cladly" (meaning skimpily, as in "cladly dressed"), apparently from a misinterpretation of "scantily clad", which is catastrophically wrong but that I rather hope becomes accepted because it is hilarious.

[miguel]

There's a saying in my country that goes:
"Who asks about the smelly breeze nature
is more often the reason behind it"

[Andail]

Funny that irony and Alanis should come up here, because me and Snarky (ahem, Snarky and I) exchanged some arguments on facebook recently about it. I don't recall the conversation entirely, but I think I was probably right and Snarky probably wrong.

This is also related to the recent re-listing of the word 'literally' to mean the opposite, 'figuratively', just because people don't know how to distinguish the two.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally (our friend merriam-webster again). Note how definition #2 is 'virtually'...

I mean, language is an organic thing, and all languages change, but when you take away meaning and blend it with other words that already function perfectly, I don't see the point.

[Stupot]

Another one people just say without knowing what it means is 'ignorant'.  "Oh she's justa ignorant bitch!" when "she" hasn't actually displayed any signs of ignorance. But here, I'm not even sure what the people who say it think it means. Perhaps they're relating it to 'ignore' so they're really saying "oh she's justa bitch what don't listen!".

I'm okay with 'bemused' evolving. I don't think it's doing any harm. And I wouldn't have much problem with a new meaning for 'ignorant' if only the people who were (mis)using it actually knew what they meant, rather than just saying it because it sounds like a 'big word what clever folken use'.

[Baron]

To win an internet argument I'm going to use an analogy of an internet truism, complete with improper spelling and gratuitous verbing: if haters gonna hate, then dummies gonna dumb ( ).  The "proper" language you (and I) cherish is really just the bastardized vernacular of our linguistic forebears.  Why don't we use all those beautifully convoluted noun declensions from olde English?  What ever happened to gender in nouns?  Why don't we pronounce the "w" in "two" or the "gh" in "light"?  In short, because our linguistic forebears were lazy, dim and ignorant.  And the usage of modern English on the internet suggests that this process of language evolution is alive and well!   The only rational response to this is to smugly recognize word "misuses" (or, from a broader perspective, "emergent linguistic norms" ), try our best to decipher the meaning behind them, and adapt our understanding of what English is accordingly; trying to correct the herd is about as futile as trying to command the tide.   

[Cassiebsg]

If English keeps "evolving" that fast like that, I better start thinking of re-learning the language again... http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/Smileys/AGS/smiley16_laughing.gif

But all language evolves, and we "old ones" just get annoyed at those "youth" that can't spell or write right... and one a couple years, the circle will complete, with the current youth getting old, and thinking that the young ones can't spell or write properly...

[Radiant]

I am cemused by this thread. Possibly even demused.

[Dadalus]

See this about Alanis Morissette: Ironic

(Adult Humour)

[Stupot]

I wonder if Alanis ever cringes when she remember recording that massive cock-up.

[Darth Mandarb]

I wonder if Alanis ever cringes when she remember recording that massive cock-up.

Actually she thinks; that song gets the definition of "ironic" completely wrong and yet it helped make me my millions and millions of dollars.  Ironic... don't ya think?

[Snarky]

I think "language changes *shrug*" is a bit of a cop-out. Sure, it does, but that doesn't we must be indifferent to the changes. And it doesn't mean that the changes are entirely out of our hands. Some seemingly unstoppable trends turn out to be fads, and campaigns to affect how people speak have been successful on occasion.

Funny that irony and Alanis should come up here, because me and Snarky (ahem, Snarky and I) exchanged some arguments on facebook recently about it. I don't recall the conversation entirely, but I think I was probably right and Snarky probably wrong.

This is also related to the recent re-listing of the word 'literally' to mean the opposite, 'figuratively', just because people don't know how to distinguish the two.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally (our friend merriam-webster again). Note how definition #2 is 'virtually'...

Yeah, the ironic thing is that I am literally the last person in the world to reject language change just based on authority.

"Literally", for example, doesn't bother me much. People have been using it as a form of hyperbole for (literally) three hundred years (and it's been in the OED and most other dictionaries with that meaning for more than a hundred), and actually it was always rather inevitable that they would, since asserting the actuality of what you're saying is a standard way to emphasize it, even if you're understood to be exaggerating or using a metaphor. Take some common intensifiers: really ("what I am saying is real"), truly, positively, absolutely... even good old "very" (and its archaic cousin "verily") is an assertion of truthfulness, via French. It's a pointless battle, because people are always going to exaggerate, and will always try to find ways to make their statements more emphatic. (There's a nice discussion of the history of and relationships between the different senses of the word here.)

I would defend Alanis and "Ironic" against the critics as well, though my take is a little different from Merriam-Webster's. While they seem to argue that "irony" is such a vague concept that anything goes, my argument is that many of the anecdotes in the song are clearly ironic under the strict definition, and that all the rest (which are too short to really judge) could easily be so depending on the context. I mean:

Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly
He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids good-bye
He waited his whole damn life to take that flight
And as the plane crashed down he thought
"Well, isn't this nice."

That is textbook irony on at least two levels!

[Radiant]

I would defend Alanis and "Ironic" against the critics as well, though my take is a little different from Merriam-Webster's. While they seem to argue that "irony" is such a vague concept that anything goes, my argument is that many of the anecdotes in the song are clearly ironic under the strict definition, and that all the rest (which are too short to really judge) could easily be so depending on the context.

Or, you know, this:

[Snarky]

Yeah well, he's wrong.

If you live around the North Sea, rain on your wedding day is something you have got to count on. But if you live in LA (as Alanis Morissette did when she wrote the song) and get married in, say, July, rain would be an utterly freak occurrence. So if you had put a lot of effort into planning a gorgeous wedding, only to see it ruined by something beyond your control and reasonable precaution, sure, that's ironic ("characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is"). Absolutely.

[Dadalus]

If you live around the North Sea, rain on your wedding day is something you have got to count on. But if you live in LA (as Alanis Morissette did when she wrote the song) and get married in, say, July, rain would be an utterly freak occurrence. So if you had put a lot of effort into planning a gorgeous wedding, only to see it ruined by something beyond your control and reasonable precaution, sure, that's ironic ("characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is"). Absolutely.

That may be Situational Irony as defined by some dictionaries. To me its not irony, its just bad luck. It would be ironic if she were getting married to a weatherman who had predicted a sunny day. Thank you Ed Byrne (see earlier post of mine).

I think its a word thats hard to pin down, and my understanding of it may be completely wrong (would that be ironic?)

[Andail]

My position:

I'll agree that irony can be more than its strictest sense, namely to make a point by saying the opposite, just for the sake of contrast. I can accept that irony can also be the way things just happen, on a few conditions: if there's a narrative context that can be interpreted as if it were almost designed.

For something to be called ironic, there should be some kind of thought, intention or deliberate action before it. I don't think rain can be ironic just because it's not expected. In my opinion, there has to be more of a setup, the result of a decision.

1. The couple has travelled all the way from a really humid place to a some place completely arid just to avoid rain at all cost. On this particular day, however, there's sunshine for the first day in ages in their hometown, while the current destination experiences rain for the first time in recorded history.

2. The husband is a meteorologist who has always had a knack for saying exactly when there's a rainstorm coming, but on his wedding day he's of course not "on duty" so he neglects all the signs and the rest is history.

Now those would be fine cases of irony

When it comes to 'literally' I'm a bit torn. Just because it's commonly used as an intensifier ("I literally died out there!"), which of course is just natural, idiomatic English, I'm not sure the definition of the word should have 'virtually' or 'figuratively' appended to it. But anyway, there's no way to stop people from using 'literally' in its opposite meaning now, so that struggle is probably futile.

[selmiak]

http://youtu.be/nb0YoRMXIY0?t=9m6s
also relevant (but not that ironic)

[Calin Leafshade]

There are multiple kinds of irony.

A lot of the song does certainly come under what one might call "cosmic irony" even if it's not quite rhetorical or literary irony.

[Baron]

Or metally irony....

[Stupot]

Richard Dawkins has weighed in on the debate: https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/501967692921049089

[Atelier]

I'm struggling to understand why people would even care about somebody on the internet being wrong. As long as you personally speak and write English correctly, what's the big deal?

[Adeel]

I'm struggling to understand why people would even care about somebody on the internet being wrong. As long as you personally speak and write English correctly, what's the big deal?

The truth has been spoken!

[Babar]

I'm struggling to understand why people would even care about somebody on the internet being wrong. As long as you personally speak and write English correctly, what's the big deal?

Because language is not a solo activity. It is a form of communication. And if your communication is broken, it should be fixed.

EDIT:
I have been informed that my phrasing could be interpreted as being a bit harsh. Let me assure everyone that my statement was not directed at any one person, and I meant no offense. Perhaps a less acerbic way of putting it would be:
The main (possibly only?) function of language is to transfer an idea from the head of one person to the head of another person while changing as little as possible. If the usage fails at this, then it is fundamentally useless and broken, and should be fixed.

Is it ironic that my statement of the necessity of standards in language and communication to avoid misunderstandings was misinterpreted?

[Khris]

Is this the proper place to mention how much I hate it when somebody says "I wrote a blog" instead of "(blog) article/entry"? It's so bad it makes we want to slap them.

[selmiak]

you should write a whole blog about this phenomena

[Atelier]

I have been informed that my phrasing could be interpreted as being a bit harsh.

Really? It wasn't even remotely harsh or acerbic, I don't care what you fuckers think of me anyway (<- real harshness)

Seriously though, somebody simply misunderstanding the true meaning of ironic doesn't make the sentence as a whole 'useless'. We don't understand language in a mechnical manner whereby a minor error nullifies the majority; you can still understand what foreigners speaking in broken English are trying to convey, for example. If somebody appends 'isn't that ironic?!' to an anecdote and it isn't, well, you'll just think to yourself "no it isn't", and that's that. Nobody's going to die from that mistake. It doesn't need to be fixed so every single word in the sentence is perfect, and therefore you can finally understand them.

Edit: I am just talking about the 'ironic' thing here, obviously some minor errors can be catastrophic eg "cut the blue wire" when you meant to say "cut the red wire". But 'isn't that ironic' falls into a category of things where an error with it's usage is so trivial in day-to-day life it's just pointless to challenge people on. "I wrote a blog" is also another perfect example - yes it's wrong and they should be slapped, but you still understand what they mean so...

[Khris]

Sure, I know what they mean, but I would want to be corrected if I kept misusing a word. I think it is completely OK to point out those mistakes in a polite way, and if you care about how you express yourself, you'll benefit if other people point out yours.

Plus, some misused words make you sound like an idiot, and while this might not be a big deal in IRC chats or the like, it could make a lot of difference in job interviews or on dates.

[Andail]

Furthermore, I've noticed how people, at least Brits, tend to use 'literally' when there isn't a call for neither a figurative nor a literal intensifier, like when Jamie Oliver says something like "You then literally grab the union and literally squeeze it down your food processor, etc etc".

I guess when a word has deteriorated into some kind of sound filler, there's no turning back...

[Radiant]

Furthermore, I've noticed how people, at least Brits, tend to use 'literally' when there isn't a call for neither a figurative nor a literal intensifier, like when Jamie Oliver says something like "You then literally grab the union and literally squeeze it down your food processor, etc etc".

That's the same kind of hyperbole as stating "I've been waiting for a hundred years"

[Calin Leafshade]

In that sense it's used as a replacement for "simply" really. He's saying "Then you can just do X, that's all you have to do, there's nothign else."

[Dadalus]

A form of emphasis, rather than the pet peeve of mine when someone says something along the lines of 'I literally fell to pieces'.

I'm being pedantic. 'The pedants are revolting' .. 'Let them eat books on grammar' (exits stage left)

[Snarky]

Is it any worse than, e.g., "this really is the last straw!" when in reality there are no straws involved?

[Dadalus]

No I suppose not, I just find it grating, though its no biggie.

'That'll learn em'

[selmiak]

then it is literally the last straw...

[Radiant]

Is it any worse than, e.g., "this really is the last straw!" when in reality there are no straws involved?

Ironically, yes.

[Stupot]

Thinking about it, it seems that the word 'literally', rather than being used as a replacement for 'figuratively' is as actually just being used figuratively.

But there is a whole class of words (literally, actually, virtually, practically, essentially, basically) and they are all misused regularly in various ways.  I'm not sure why 'literally' is the one we are least forgiving of, probably because, like, literally everyone does it.

[Andail]

Is it any worse than, e.g., "this really is the last straw!" when in reality there are no straws involved?

This is exactly my point! Just because a word can be used figuratively to intensify a statement, should the definition of the word be adjusted to reflect this irregular use?

My gripe is that MW added the meaning 'virtually' to 'literally' when the inherent definition of the word is exactly the opposite.

When you look up 'really' in a dictionary, do you also find the definition "not at all"?
Because when I say "You really suck", that person may not at all be engaged in the activity of sucking anything.

[Intense Degree]

The misuse of literally is definitely rife where I am. The Jamie Oliver example above is one thing, but it is not at all uncommon to hear something like I heard one girl say to a friend last week; "OMG I was so embarrassed, I literally died!". Oh no you didn't madam!

[Snarky]

"Virtually" and "literally" (in its original sense) are not exact opposites, if such a thing even exists in language. "Literally" is usually contrasted with "figuratively", but whether this works as an opposite depends on the context.

I'm not convinced M-W's second entry is the right way to describe the extended sense of "literally", but the usage note takes care of any objection I might have.

And for "really", the first definition in most dictionaries is some variation on "in actual truth or fact". So any sense that allows it to be used to describe something that is NOT in actual truth or fact violates this definition. And in actual truth and fact, the OED provides this as the second sense: "Truly, indeed; positively. In later use also as an intensifier: very, thoroughly."

And yes, if a word is routinely and widely used in a way that doesn't adhere to a dictionary's definition, then the dictionary should either update that definition or add an additional one, while noting any controversy over the use. Otherwise it wouldn't be very useful as a dictionary, would it?

I don't think the issue here is really about dictionary definitions, but whether there's something wrong with using "literally" as an intensifier for metaphorical expressions. But the thing is, all expressions are metaphorical, deep (or not so deep) down. (That sentence, for example, had at least four metaphors.) http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011

Using "literally" to mean "actually, not figuratively" is itself a metaphor, an extension of the original meaning "letter by letter/word by word". http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3007

[Andail]

I absolutely agree that dictionaries should be more descriptive than prescriptive, but I think there are definitely cases where you can afford to be a bit more conservative, and that's when
1. you deprive the language of a rather useful function
2. there already exist perfectly good words that have the function in question.

'Literally' is useful in its original definition, to imply that you mean something in its actual sense. I think it's great to have a word that can convey things like "he was literally blinded by her beauty" when he got a teaspoon in his eye because he wasn't paying attention. Ok, bad example but you catch my drift.

The reason for 'literally' spilling over into the 'figuratively' territory isn't because it was needed there, it's because people started to confuse the words and started over-using the former.

Just saying why it bugs me a bit