"The Sixties"...

[rubato]

Meade--one more--what is one billion:

one thousand million (1,000,000,000) as in the US

or

one million million(s) (1,000,000,000,000, one trillion in the US) as in British usage?

eta: I do know in some fields (such as banking) the US definition has been accepted by the Brits, but I've still heard many Brits use the term One (or ten or whatever) thousand million and then use billion to refer to a million million(s); I've also heard the terms "Old Billion" and "New Billion". When I worked with the English, I usually to clarified the usage by writing the number out, but I don't know what the schools teach and how common the "Old" usage is.

Those who seek to express themselves and be understood will make an effort to understand what is the state of that collective agreement at that time and conform in a way which is comprehensible to their audience.

which is precisely why an understanding of regionalisms is important. I'd hate to offer a Brit a billion pounds wthout knowing exactly how they understood it.

Those who seek to understand will make an effort to adapt to the imperfections in someone else's attempts at expression.

Precisely, rather than call them ignorant or uneducated, which is what I originally objected to. (oops, there I go ending a sentence in a preposition...).

Someone who does not know the most commonly understood definition of the word "nonplusssed" is ignorant. Ignorance is remediable for someone who is willing to learn and accepts the fact that if one is trying to communicate one uses the language understood by their audience.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

"...

So tell me, what is the unambiguous definition of the verb "to table" ? It's not to place something on a table (unless you're maybe a waiter); it's to either bring something up for consideration or to remove it from consideration, and which of those it is depends on who is speaking. I won't ask you to choose one, as it is pointless to do so.

Tabling a motion means to defer it to a later time. That later time might be specified or not. Whether one emphasizes the fact that it is not to be discussed now or that it is to be discussed later depends on the perspective and perhaps degree of optimism of the listener.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

"...

which is precisely why an understanding of regionalisms is important.

Useful sometimes, but not as important as understanding the most common usages.

The English have adopted the American usage for "billion" long since:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

For most of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the United Kingdom largely used the long scale,[3][4] while the United States of America used the short scale,[3] so that the two systems were often referred to as British and American in the English language. After several decades of increasing British usage of the short scale, in 1974, the government of the UK fully adopted it, which is reflected in its mass media and official usage.[5][6][7][8][9][10] With very few exceptions,[11] the British usage and American usage are now identical.

Countries who still use the "long scale" generally use different languages so we would be translating anyway so it wouldn't make a billionth on an iota of difference.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Someone who does not know the most commonly understood definition of the word "nonplusssed" is ignorant. Ignorance is remediable for someone who is willing to learn and accepts the fact that if one is trying to communicate one uses the language understood by their audience.

there comes that silly arrogance to end the discussion. thanks for playing; Johnny will tell you what prizes you go home with.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry my dear old fence-sitter but this:

So tell me, what is the unambiguous definition of the verb "to table" ?

is hopelessly wet.

"to table" is either an action involving (e.g.) a motion up for discussion or decision at a meeting or a brief description of a trumpet, depending upon the chosen pronunciation of 'table'.

The point is not "to table" but the word "table" (which is a noun) as is 'nonplus'. 'nonplus' has an actual meaning - it does not have two actual and opposite meanings, even in North America. What ignorant (i.e. not knowing) people do with language is their problem; they may well transform a noun into a correct verb form and yet still not understand what it means, thereby making up their own meaning which contradicts the noun. This not 'evolution' of a word but simple lack of understanding.

What does 'table' refer to? Does it rely for its meaning (in any context) on a common understanding of an item of furniture raised above ground level on various kinds of supports and having a flat top - or does it mean a large cactus being eaten by a lion?

To choose both (or neither) might indicate a person was being obtuse -two meanings available. You may choose to be #2 if you so desire or declare that 'obtuse' actually means 'sharp and incisive

ob·tuse /əbˈt(y)o͞os,äb-/ adjective

1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand. "he wondered if (your name goes here) was being deliberately obtuse"

synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; More
insensitive, imperceptive, uncomprehending;

informal: dim, dimwitted, dense, dumb, slow on the uptake, halfwitted, brain-dead, moronic, cretinous, thick, dopey, lamebrained, dumb-ass, dead from the neck up, boneheaded, chowderheaded "he frustrated his teachers by pretending to be obtuse"

2 (of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.

[Long Run]

MGM, even though you are bad at English, the dope really,you won't stop me from verbing nouns.

[Lord Jim]

I see language as a tool which is used to communicate the ideas, and so I turn to usage (common, regional, etc.), along with context, when I want to understand what someone says. I may not even like the way they choose to phrase something, but understanding what they say is of paramount importance.

Really? You mean communication and understanding is what language is for? You mean its purpose isn't to serve as a tool for a handful of self-righteous obsessive tut tutters with poles up their asses to use to condescend to others and wallow in their imagined sense of superiority?

Apparently some folks 'round these parts didn't get the memo...

As for "nonplussed":

In my entire life, not once, not a single time have I ever heard or read any usage of that word, (not in a book, a paper an essay, nothing) using any meaning other than the commonly understood one of being calm and unperturbed. Indeed until a few days ago, seeing it in this very thread, I was completely unaware of an archaic, fallen out of use alternative definition where the word is supposed to mean the opposite of what it is widely and commonly understood to mean by the vast majority of English speakers.

I suppose that's interesting as an historical footnote, but it is of precisely zero value in terms of communication. Anyone who tried to use the word with its archaic, fallen out of use meaning in communication would, (as rube has suggested) look like the ignorant one, and fail to communicate effectively.

(Unless of course their audience consisted entirely of other self-righteous obsessive tut tutters with poles up their asses who like to condescend to others and wallow in their imagined sense of superiority. In that case, they'd probably get a standing ovation...)

In fact, while I'm generally not in the habit of quoting rube, (well, not approvingly, anyway) I think he said it quite well here:

Someone who does not know the most commonly understood definition of the word "nonplusssed" is ignorant. Ignorance is remediable for someone who is willing to learn and accepts the fact that if one is trying to communicate one uses the language understood by their audience.

[Big RR]

Meade--like it or not, table (when used as a verb) has two separate, and roughly opposite, meanings based on whether the speaker is British or American. It doesn't matter one bit that the verb is derived from the noun table; it is essential to understand whether something tabled is up for discussion, or put aside (when my British colleagues said they were tabling the matter for the next meeting I erroneously thought it meant we would not discuss it). Again, the purpose of language is to understand the idea being communicated, and it that requires taking into account the nationality (or region or whatever) of who is saying it, then you must take that into account or ignore it at your peril.

Just like I'll ignore the obtuse jab reasoning it was made in jest.

[Guinevere]

From a Boston Globe linguist on the changing meaning of words.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... t_bemused/

We are not bemused

Or are we? A word's dueling meanings

By Jan Freeman
November 16, 2008

DURING THE PAST year of political reporting, a lot of writers have thought bemused was just the right word for Barack Obama's benign, unruffled presence, especially in the debates with John McCain.

"Mr. Obama maintained a placid and at times bemused demeanor . . . as he parried the attacks," reported the New York Times, one of dozens of newspapers and magazines, in the United States and abroad, to use the B-word this way.

And now, all that bemusing has attracted the notice of several usage watchers - traditionalists who think that use of bemused, ubiquitous though it is, should not be accepted as standard English.

Merrill Perlman, who writes the Language Corner column for the Columbia Journalism Review, posted an entry on bemused several weeks ago, objecting to the sentence "Obama shrugged off McCain's attacks with a bemused smile."

"If the last six months of Nexis citations are any guide," she wrote, "more than half the people reading this think, as the above writers did, that 'bemused' means something like 'amused.' But it doesn't." Perlman, formerly director of copy desks at the Times, believes that "unless Obama was 'confused,' or 'muddled,' or 'puzzled,' he was not 'bemused.' "

A couple of days after the election, Russell Smith of the Toronto Globe and Mail seconded Perlman's advice. "Bemused means puzzled or confused," he wrote. "It comes from the idea of being taken by a muse. It's not necessarily a laughing state."

And last week, at the Times's usage blog, After Deadline, deputy news editor Philip Corbett joined the parade, noting half a dozen uses of bemused in his paper that he found mysterious. In one description of Obama, he said, "we seemed to mean something like 'above it all, with a trace of amusement' - but that's not what 'bemused' means."

Then again, maybe it is. As Perlman concedes, Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary (2003) lists the disputed meaning as bemuse's most recent sense: "to cause to have feelings of wry or tolerant amusement."

As for the derivation of bemused, Smith's "taken by a muse" has a grain of truth - but the story is much more complicated. As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage explains, bemuse was first used by Alexander Pope, in 1705: "Poets . . . are irrecoverably be-Mused." But this looks like a pun: Poets are seized by the Muse, one of the Greek goddesses of the arts; and they are thus inspired to muse - to meditate, comtemplate, and wonder. (The Greek muse and the English verb are etymologically unrelated.)

Thirty years later, Pope used the word again, in a poem complaining that his fame was drawing would-be poets to his door - people like "A parson, much bemused in beer/ a maudlin poetess, a rhyming peer,/ a clerk, foredoomed his father's soul to cross . . ."

That "bemused in beer" suggested "drunk" to many readers. But the Merriam-Webster editors demur: "It seems quite likely that Pope is suggesting that the parson found his muse in beer. A parson who is simply muddled by beer" - rather than inspired by it - "would not make much sense in the larger context."

Dictionaries, however, soon began recording bemused as "a term of contempt" meaning "to muddle or stupefy," with drink or otherwise. Pope's own phrase, "bemused in beer," apparently faded from use, but an 1890 slang dictionary records that it enjoyed a sudden revival in the mid-19th century: "In America, especially, it caught the popular fancy and ran a brief but riotous course throughout the Union to signify one who addicted himself to 'soaking' with beer."

Then, starting in the mid-20th century, bemused increasingly took on the sense it so often has now - "quizzical, curiously and detachedly amused." This is no great leap, given that its sister verbs, amuse and muse, once could mean "distract, puzzle, occupy" and "wonder, marvel": "Women are so much amuzed with the management at home," wrote a 1689 observer who surely did not mean those women were entertained.

Corbett at the Times argues that the blurring of bemused dulls what should be a precise tool for "the careful writer." This hardly seems to apply here, however, since the word's meaning has been obscure during much of its existence. It would be convenient if bemused settled down to a dominant sense, as it seems to be doing. But except for the beery era, it's hard to point to an earlier time in which one unambiguous sense reigned.

These days, with amuse limited to jolly contexts, we need a word like bemused to convey wry puzzlement far more than we need it as another synonym for "drunk." And if, as Perlman suggests, more than half of the CJR's readers and half of the journalists on the Nexis database think bemused means "quizzical, wryly amused," then isn't that - by definition, as it were - what it does mean?

[Sue U]

As for "nonplussed":

In my entire life, not once, not a single time have I ever heard or read any usage of that word, (not in a book, a paper an essay, nothing) using any meaning other than the commonly understood one of being calm and unperturbed.

My experience has been the exact opposite, at least as to the written word, although I have heard people (mis)employ it in speech to mean "unfazed," as apparently even noted orator Barack Obama has done.

Word Routes Exploring the pathways of our lexicon
Perplexed by "Nonplussed" and "Bemused"

November 18, 2008
By Ben Zimmer

Yesterday, our "Editorial Emergency" duo of Simon Glickman and Julia Rubiner launched a salvo against a common usage of the word nonplussed, a word they "wager more people get wrong than right." That opens an interesting can of worms: if a word or phrase used to have Meaning A, but more people now use it with Meaning B, is it time for the Meaning A folks to stand aside?

In the case of nonplussed, the old meaning is "bewildered," while the new meaning is "unfazed." Simon and Julia aren't the only ones bewildered by the change of meaning. Meghan Daum, writing in the Los Angeles Times, was similarly disappointed by Barack Obama's use of the "unfazed" sense of the word when he said of his daughters' response to media scrutiny, "I've been really happy by how nonplussed they've been by the whole thing." Daum despairs, "Et tu, Obama? It seems so."

For her L.A. Times piece, Daum consulted with University Pennsylvania linguist Mark Liberman, who ended up posting his response (as well as a follow-up) on the group blog Language Log (where I also contribute). Liberman covers the historical developments well, but commenters on his post, much like those on Simon and Julia's article, were sharply divided about whether we should simply accept the new meaning of nonplussed as part of our ever-changing language.

A similar case was discussed on Sunday by Jan Freeman in her Boston Globe language column, again involving a term related to Obama. Freeman observes that "a lot of writers have thought bemused was just the right word for Barack Obama's benign, unruffled presence, especially in the debates with John McCain." As the Visual Thesaurus wordmap for bemused indicates, the two primary meanings of bemused are "deeply absorbed in thought" or "perplexed by many conflicting situations or statements." The way that political reporters have used it about Obama, however, is "above it all, with a trace of amusement," in the words of New York Times deputy news editor Philip B. Corbett. Corbett adds, "but that's not what bemused means." Well, it's not what the word has historically meant, but the newer sense, influenced by amused, has become mainstream enough to enter some dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's Collegiate.

So here we have two words that have traditionally meant something like "bewildered" or "perplexed," but they've each veered off in different semantic directions — one towards resolute calmness (nonplussed) and the other towards mild amusement (bemused). How common do these new meanings need to become before they can be accepted as standard and conventional, appropriate for good writing and speaking? In the eyes of the Merriam-Webster lexicographers, the new sense of bemused has already reached that point, but the new sense of nonplussed is not quite there.

Even if these newer senses become enshrined in the major dictionaries, that won't be much solace to those with a more traditionalist take on language, who would see the semantic drift as mere error. We're left with words that are difficult to use in either the old or the new way: if you use the traditional meaning, you might confuse those who are unfamiliar with with it, and if you use the newer meaning, you might annoy those who feel that the meaning is wrong. Bryan Garner, in his book Garner's Modern American Usage, refers to such words as "skunked terms":

When a word undergoes a marked change from one use to another — a phase that might
take ten years or a hundred — it's likely to be the subject of dispute. Some people (Group 1)
insist on the traditional use; others (Group 2) embrace the new use. ... A word is most hotly
disputed in the middle part of this process: any use of it is likely to distract some readers.
The new use seems illiterate to Group 1; the old use seems odd to Group 2. The word has
become "skunked."

"Skunked terms" on Garner's list include data, decimate, effete, enormity, fulsome, and that old usage bugaboo, hopefully. Each of these items has undergone a transformation similar to nonplussed and bemused. Garner's advice for dealing with skunked terms is one of avoidance: "To the writer or speaker for whom credibility is important, it's a good idea to avoid distracting any readers or listeners — whether they're in Group 1 or Group 2."

What do Group 1-ers and Group 2-ers think? Are these troublesome words best left unused until their meanings become more settled? Should we preserve the old, embrace the new, or attempt to do both? Sound off in the comments below!

http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordr ... d-bemused/

In addition to being one of its greatest strengths, the evolutionary aspect of the English language is one of its charms -- whether evolution of meaning is achieved through accretion or error. Personally, I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to word usage, but if your audience understands your meaning I'm not particularly picky. However, if your audience will be confused or uncertain because of the word used, it's undoubtedly better to choose another word.

[Big RR]

However, if your audience will be confused or uncertain because of the word used, it's undoubtedly better to choose another word.

I agree. Or at least use it in a context where the intended meaning is clear.

[Guinevere]

Hahaha Sue, that article cites the Globe piece I posted above.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No surrender! (Surrender means "to give up" although informal USians might want to think it means "fondue")

OK Big RR - you chose "neither" in the exciting game we're playing - so are you obtuse (1) or obtuse (2) - being difficult or just an angle between 90 and 180 deg.? (And it was a self-selecting exercise in jocularity).

I suppose we have to wonder what "informal" means - since all dictionaries (I've found so far) that bother to sniff at the wrong meaning of nonplussed are careful to say "informal" after that wrong usage.

In the case of nonplussed, the new meaning has already made it into Encarta's entry:

1. confused: surprised, confused, and uncertain what to do or say
2. cool and collected: calm and unperturbed ( informal )

with a usage note: The adjective nonplussed means "surprised, confused, and uncertain what to do or say." It is increasingly used in the almost opposite sense of "untroubled," especially in U.S. English (Nonplussed by the criticism, she continued to direct her films in the very same offbeat manner for which she was famed.). This new meaning is not yet accepted as standard, and it may cause ambiguity in sentences such as He seemed nonplussed by the news. It possibly derives from a misunderstanding of the non- element, perhaps also influenced by nonchalant which does mean "calm and unconcerned." But nonplussed goes back to Latin non plus "no more," and does not have a positive or affirmative form plussed.

LJ you've not read Billy Budd then?

At that question, unintentionally touching on a spiritual sphere wholly obscure to Billy's thoughts, he was nonplussed, evincing a confusion indeed that some observers, such as can readily be imagined, would have construed into involuntary evidence of hidden guilt. (21.19)

or watched Archer?
"Do you want to have sex with my wife?"
"No. I, I swear this was just an extremely unlikely mishap with the barbed wire."
"Because we would be amenable to that. Well? Why do you look so nonplussed?"
"Because I wasn’t sure if you knew what amenable actually meant until you followed it up with nonplussed."

or 30 Rock?
Tracy: Liz Lemon, did you just call me an idiot on this TV?
Liz: Yeah, but--
Tracy: And what exactly is that supposed to mean?
Liz: It means you're someone who should know better but you constantly do stupid things.
Tracy: How dare you? I am nonplussed, and that is the correct usage. You have offended and humiliated me.

or J K Rowling?
I bumped into a woman I hadn’t seen for nearly three years. The first thing she said to me? “You’ve lost a lot of weight since the last time I saw you!”
“Well,” I said, slightly nonplussed, “the last time you saw me I’d just had a baby.”
(for asserters of ambiguity, slightly unfazed doesn't work - slightly dumbfounded does)

I chose not to quote anyone who used it incorrectly since that's a waste of time - unlike this.....

[Guinevere]

So, based on your study of language Meade, informal means "wrong?" Or is that just in this particular context.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I suppose we have to wonder what "informal" means

[rubato]

Someone who does not know the most commonly understood definition of the word "nonplusssed" is ignorant. Ignorance is remediable for someone who is willing to learn and accepts the fact that if one is trying to communicate one uses the language understood by their audience.

there comes that silly arrogance to end the discussion. thanks for playing; Johnny will tell you what prizes you go home with.

If someone does not know something then they are ignorant of it. It is not arrogant to say so or to point it out. If someone uses a word and does not know that the most common and most generally accepted meaning is opposite the one they are using then that is ignorance.


You made an error by saying it you should not call people ignorant when they obviously are and used a bullshit snippy reaction when you should have said "yes they are ignorant".


Saying it is ignorant is just stating a plain fact. We live in a state of relative ignorance; and it is one of the tasks of life to gradually and partially overcome it; if you refuse to admit it you are doomed to eternal ignorance.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I think I know what you problem is Meade...

Barack Obama uses the contemporary definition rather than the archaic one, so you have to embrace the latter...

Why do you hate black people?

[rubato]

So, based on your study of language Meade, informal means "wrong?" Or is that just in this particular context.

If you are trying to communicate and use the wrong word to convey your meaning clearly, then it is wrong. Whether you have used the formal or informal meaning is irrelevant. You have not understood what language your audience will comprehend. There is a mirror-image description of the role of the person being communicated to; listener, reader or whatever.

If your honest goal is to communicate then the measure of right and wrong is the success of that communication.

If your goal is merely to constantly self-justify then you can say "I was really right because I used the informal definition and I didn't really care if my audience understood me or not".

The latter person is unlikely to be saying anything of interest anyway.




yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

rubato--

You made an error by saying it you should not call people ignorant when they obviously are and used a bullshit snippy reaction when you should have said "yes they are ignorant".

Why thanks, I will give your sage advice all the consideration it is due. In fact, I already have, while I wrote the first letter of this post--and even that was far too long.

If you feel you have to personally denigrate others to make yourself feel superior (and that's what I surmise from your insistence on name calling), there is nothing I can do about it, but I will never join in the name calling. So enjoy your arrogance and rant away trying to belittle others.

Meade--interesting in your examples you chose 3 British usages (Billy Budd, Archer, and one of the Harry potter books) and one American use which is meant to show what an ass the person who points out she is using the "correct usage" is (it stems at the beginning from Liz initially calling her an idiot. I'll admit I don't watch the show and never saw the entire scene, but that's what I take from the lines you quoted.

And as for "No surrender! (Surrender means "to give up" although informal USians might want to think it means "fondue")", I have to love your feeble attempts to minimize the discussion by resorting to reductio ad absurdum. But keep on trying.

[Sue U]

Meade--interesting in your examples you chose 3 British usages (Billy Budd, Archer, and one of the Harry potter books) and one American use which is meant to show what an ass the person who points out she is using the "correct usage" is (it stems at the beginning from Liz initially calling her an idiot. I'll admit I don't watch the show and never saw the entire scene, but that's what I take from the lines you quoted.

For purposes of clarification only, on 30 Rock "Tracy" is a man (Tracy Morgan) and he is also A Idiot. (Which is part of what makes it funny.)