I find myself often winging it with “themself/themselves” and it seems to be like themselves is always colloquially correct when there are multiple preceding nouns you’re referring to…
Otherwise if there’s only one antecedent or whatever, its themself
Be gentle haha
I’m not sure if I understood the question correctly, but ‘factoid’ is the most commonly misused word that I know of. It’s not a synonym for ‘fact’; it actually means the exact opposite. A factoid is a misconception so widely believed that people take it as a fact. You could even say that the word ‘factoid’ itself has become a factoid.
Example of a factoid: The great wall of China can be seen from space. No it can’t.
Might have been an idea to factoid-check that claim in a dictionary before posting because it’s not really correct.
Factoid (noun)
(1) an insignificant or trivial fact.
(2) something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.
Factoids are to facts what humanoids are to humans. It does not mean the “exact opposite” at all.
From here:
On occasion, a writer will coin a fine neologism that spreads quickly but then changes meaning. “Factoid” was a term created by Norman Mailer in 1973 for a piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it’s not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print. Mailer wrote in Marilyn, “Factoids…that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority.” Of late, factoid has come to mean a small or trivial fact that makes it a contronym (also called a Janus word) in that it means both one thing and its opposite, such as “cleve” (to cling or to split), “sanction” (to permit or to punish) or “citation” (commendation or a summons to appear in court). So factoid has become a victim of novelist C.S. Lewis’s term “verbicide,” the willful distortion or deprecation of a word’s original meaning.
The obvious rejoinder: if Norman Mailer wanted his neologism to keep the meaning he intended for it, he should have been more careful about etymology. The “oid” suffix makes the new definition more logical than his own one.
Counter-example: “homophobe”, which is illogical but has stuck anyway because it’s succinct.
Interesting points otherwise.
The second definition in your quote confirms that factoid can mean a widely-accepted false fact.
(2) something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.
It’s the original meaning of the word, coined by Norman Mailer in 1973.
I had no idea. Thanks!
Farther/further
That’s just US vs British English. The US version being slightly more straightforward as is often the case.
Lol. Gets murkier when you’re in neither of those places and use a combo of both. I’ll stick with “closer” for now
Note vs notate. The verb form of note is note. Notate is a back-formation of notation. It refers to writing non-linguistic transcription, like musical notation or dance choreography.
I’ve seen a few people prescribing “themselves” even for the singular, and interestingly enough Wiktionary mentions that “themself” is sometimes proscribed. Based on that I’d argue that the linguistic community didn’t “settle down” on the rules of when to use one or another.
That said, personally, I use it like you do: -self in the singular, -selves in the plural. Same deal with [our|your]+[self|selves].
I don’t care if it’s not correct - I use “theirself” and “theirselves.” It jibes with “yourself,” “myself,” and “herself.”
“Himself” is a frustrating outlier, but I do know at least one person who says “hisself,” and that’s enough precedent for me.
Weird - I never noticed that the third person reflexive forms typically use the main case (him/them) as a basis, while the others use the possessive (my/thy/your/our). No idea on why this difference.
That said “hisself”, “theirself” and “theirselves” don’t sound bad to my ears.
It also doesn’t help that the third person feminine is ambiguous. There’s often no distinction between the accusative “her” and the possessive “her” (except when the pronoun appears in a different part of the sentence and becomes “hers” - fuck I hate English), so it could be interpreted as fitting either rule.
The correct pronunciation of the word often has a silent T. The only reason the T sound remains the the dictionary is due to common use.
I pronounce it both ways. Huh. Did not know that about myself.
But there’s no “correct” pronunciation of any word. Languages change organically.
AIUI, the spoken /t/ in “often” gradually disappeared over the centuries but has more recently made a comeback due to the prevalence of text communication in modern life. And perhaps also due to so many non-native English speakers, who tend to pronounce letters when they see them.
Utilize. So many people misuse it that I should probably accept that the definition has changed. Instead of thinking they are a bit dumb.
I love trying to incorporate different constructions I find in the Yale Grammatical Diversity Program. Currently working on “for to” constructions. My goal is just to understand how people perceive language, and this is a great resource. It isn’t a collection of “wrong” ways to say things, just how a minority of people say things.
The most popular example I can think of is the song “Horse with no Name” in the chorus.
I’ve been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can’t remember your name
'Cause there ain’t no one for to give you no painPeople used to say “proven.” Like, it’s been proven. But now they say it’s been proved. When did this change?
Acc. to Merriam-Webster it’s the opposite - “proved” used to be 4x more frequent than “proven” 50~60y ago, but nowadays they’re equally common in all contexts.
In a more recent context, however, it’s possible that this tendency is being reverted because “proven” is being treated as a participle (even if proscribed), and the distinction between participle and simple past is slowly going away. So it’s possible that you’re noticing a small part of a bigger shift here. (I’m just conjecturing though, this might be wrong; take it with a grain of salt.)
There’s no such thing as “correct” grammar. Different ways of speaking (or writing/typing) can certainly make people view you differently. For instance you might be seen as more or less smart or educated or affluent depending on your way of speaking. But that’s pretty much just stereotypes.
I watched part of an MIT OpenCourseware course on linguistics once. (Very good and recommended, despite the fact that I haven’t finished it.) At one point the professor told the students that “we’ll speak no more about prescriptive linguistics except to mock it.”
This this
Does it always get a comma? Is it even proper English?
