Since 1980s use of the word, especially in safety warnings, has been sometimes discouraged lest it be misunderstood as "non-flammable" through confusion of the two prefixes in-.
"When cooking over a gas stove, avoid wearing loose, (flammable/inflammable) clothing that could catch fire easily." Which word is correct: flammable or inflammable?
It's a trick question. Both flammable and inflammable are correct, as they both mean "capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly." This makes no sense to the Modern English speaker. In English, we think of in- as a prefix that means "not": inactive means "not active," inconclusive means "not conclusive," inconsiderate means "not considerate." Therefore, inflammable should mean "not flammable."
[...]
What do you do? If you want to keep things crystal clear, choose flammable when you are referring to something that catches fire and burns easily, and use the relatively recent nonflammable when referring to something that doesn't catch fire and burn easily. Inflammable is just likely to enflame confusion.
Personally I use "inflammable", but if I were writing warning posters I would have to reconsider that.
English-speakers are really unlucky to have one of the most ambiguous word for situations where the need for clarity is of such great importance, especially as it concerns safety, even saving lives.
Romantic words were incorporated differently into other languages as the Roman Empire's influence spread. Words like inflammable have more direct Latin roots than words like indebt. So where Inflammable comes directy from the latin inflammo, indebt came from old French and middle English, going from something like endetter and endetten, using the root word dete and dette, but stemming from the root Latin word, debitum. Then en became in at some point.
That's how I understood it anyway through a very short amount of google searching. Anyone feel free to correct me.
As a French-speaker, it has always been my instinctual understanding from seeing the word and knowing how English has taken words from Latin and French.
Because modern English is a combination of ancient Celtic languages with the various languages of the British Isles's numerous populators and conquering forces across history, including but not limited to: Latin, German, Norse, and French. And spelling wasn't really standardized until the printing press was invented, due in part to class stratification. But that's another story lol. Suffice it to say, it's more than a bit of a hodgepodge and you just gotta take it for what it is.
You won't be too surprised by some of them actually: bog, bourbon, druid, shamrock, corgi, whiskey, crumpet. Others you'll find here have more circuitous routes where maybe just one phoneme stems from old Gaelic or something, into Latin, into Germanic or Old French, then into Old English, like "ambassador." I'm guessing most of the really Celtic words are used in the British Isles more than elsewhere in the English-speaking world.
Cause the verb is inflame and means to place a flame in on on something, as opposed to not flame. The problem being in both inflammable and the issue the OP of the image is the notion of re-bracketing. Rather than think of it as [inflame]able it gets converted into in[flammable] in the minds of new readers/listeners which flips the in- prefix meaning to not rather than in/on like it is supposed to be.
Went off really just means everything :3. "Wow you really went off on that guy" = yelled at someone, "the milk went off" = spoiled, "we went off on an adventure" = left to travel and so on
One that used to confuse me when I started english was "on a bus", "on a plane", but "in a car", so I can see where all those words can get confusing :3
You seem unaware at how, while French is steered by a committee of linguists, English is steered by a mob of autofellatic influencerati fame-whores, all looking for differentiation and trends to manufacture. So fetch.
The Académie Française is absolutely not a "committee of linguists". They're a bunch of rich conservatives who are way too high on nationalism, and they are infamous for going against the consensus of linguists (who they supposedly consult).
Depends on emphasis. Said with normal stress on the first syllable is "able to be unlocked".
But if you pronounce it with extra emphasis on both of the first two syllables with a bit of a pause between, I think most people would think "not able to be locked". Very context dependent though
Redminds of the German "umfahren" (run over) which is the exact opposit of "umfahren" (drive around). (First is pronounced with a tiny pause after the second letter; the other is not.)
I would never use that word in either context, neither one is coherent. I would say, Picard, where is Beverly Crusher! She must shackle me, before I am overcome!
I would say "non-lockable" means can't be locked, and "unlockable" means can be changed from locked to unlocked, implying also being lockable.
But to answer the question, yes we are making up language as we go along. For one thing we've always done that, but recently the trend has accelerated as people strive to reduce complex ideas to simple, overgeneralized slang to avoid having to think as much or do as much thumb-typing.
The door... Is locked. Due to this fact, the door cannot be locked, as it is already... Locked. The door, is un-lockable, as it cannot be made into the locked state due to already being there
Cause language is a toolkit to communicate ideas, and a toolkit frozen in glass is a useless toolkit.
You need to swap out that hammer when it starts getting damaged, or put back a screwdriver when you find out you need it again, or add new tools when you find that the tools you have now aren't fit to purpose.
And sure, there's some loose screws at the bottom of the bag, but they don't harm anything, and very occasionally they come in useful.
Now I'm trying to think of a circumstance where something can be unlocked but not relocked. Like in a game you can just make a new account and achievements are relocked.
Locks should always be able to be reversed. Locking something is restricting access, not denying it entirely. You
don't weld a door shut and call it locked.
Poe didn't write a tale about Fortunato being locked downstairs.
"Sealed", "buried", "entombed", "immured" - all perfectly good terms for closing access to something with the intent of the closure being permanent.
Yep. Language can be funny like that. You are either modifying the adjective "lockable" with the prefix "un-", or you are modifying the verb "unlock" into an adjective by adding "-able" at the end.
Words can have multiple definitions, yay!
I would say "un" implies a reversal of some state. More clear would be "not lockable", so most people would use this. Unlockable is much more likely to mean able to reverse the state of being locked.
@The_Picard_Maneuver You know we are... every rule gets a 'but maybe', 'except for when', 'never mind, nothing means what you think and everything means something AND nothing at all but also whatever you want it to mean.'
It's the same thing with “unsweet,” which has apparently become the universal term at food establishments when you want unsweetened tea. I’m in the American South, so I encounter this constantly.
But what the hell is “unsweet”? What does that even mean? Did they sweeten it and then somehow take the sweetness back out? Was it accomplished through evaporation? Reverse osmosis? Some sort of industrial-scale anti-sugar process?
“Unsweet” isn't a word.
So when I order, I specifically say, “unsweetened tea,” and the server inevitably responds, “Unsweet?”
The amount of smug confidence emanating from your comments is honestly stifling, especially considering how incredibly wrong you are. But let me go ahead and respond to you now in a much more meaningful way.
“Unsweet” is not a clipping of “unsweetened.” “Unsweet” is an adjective meaning that sweetness has been removed from something. “Unsweetened” means that sweetness was never added in the first place. They are two different words with two different meanings. When a server uses “unsweet” to mean “unsweetened,” they are using the word incorrectly and in the wrong sense.
“TV” is an initialism, which is a type of abbreviation. How you arrived at the conclusion that “TV” is simply a shortening of the word “television,” I have no idea. It is quite obvious, however, that you are not fully aware of how the English language actually functions. The fact that you are able to articulate yourself in English at all is frankly amazing, especially considering the sheer amount of smugness following you around.
Adjectives can be shortened. Like in the case of “unsweet”, for example!
Do you also think they have to remove lead from gasoline to make unleaded gas? (Sorry for using the word “gas”; we know how you feel about shortened words.) “Un” is a prefix that can just mean “not” sometimes, as in “unintelligent” ;)
It’s 7:30 a.m. I literally just woke up because my wife needs to make sure the teenager gets up to catch the bus to school. And as I lay here trying to accept the world as it is, with the current economic and political climate, as I do every morning, I find myself needing to explain to people that “unsweetened” and “unleaded” serve essentially the same mechanical linguistic function: they describe something to which the relevant substance was not added. Sweetener was not added to the beverage. Lead was not added to the gasoline.
As the kids mill out of the house complaining about school and the general condition of their overtaxed lives, I wonder whether you have ever used the word “unlead.”
No. I would venture not.
In fact, I would bet good money that you have never used that word, nor would you consider it a shortening or clipping of “unleaded.”
Looks like the teenager has finally departed. The irony that she is going to a public school where she will be taught the nuance of the English language in an academic capacity does not escape me, particularly since I apparently have to deconstruct an insult aimed at me just to demonstrate how stupid it is.
The word “unintelligent” possesses the same basic construction as “unleaded” and “unsweetened.” The prefix “un-” can indicate the absence or negation of something. “Unintelligent” means not intelligent. “Unsweetened” means not sweetened. “Unleaded” means not leaded.
And yet, apparently, somewhere along the way, I have been placed in the position of explaining basic English morphology to someone who thought they had discovered some devastating linguistic observation.
I now sit on the toilet taking my morning constitutional and wondering why I want to insult you in the meanest way possible. Someone has already told me that I am being arrogant and mean, and, honestly, I cannot think of a compelling reason to disagree with them.
122 Comments
someguy3@lemmy.world · 63 pts · 23d
Unconceivable.
darkdemize@sh.itjust.works · 30 pts · 23d
You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 54 pts · 23d
Unlock-able versus un-lockable
Equinox1289@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 23d
That's mental bracketing for you.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 23d
TIL the thing I do when I’m trying to understand an ambiguous sentence has a name
Zachariah@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 23d
Gork@sopuli.xyz · 13 pts · 23d
Unlockable ass-lock
troglodytis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Is that ass on lock for being unlockable, or is that lock ass for being unlockable?
Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 22d
XKCD #37
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social · 33 pts · 23d
Ahh, I've been speaking english for over a decade, and I still sometimes get caught up with these and say the opposite thing of what I want
Like the whole thing of flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing.. just why?
folekaule@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 23d
"flammable" actually has an interesting story:
Ref: inflammable on Etymonline
slothrop@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 23d
So which is sanctioned...?
folekaule@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 23d
Merriam-Webster says this:
Personally I use "inflammable", but if I were writing warning posters I would have to reconsider that.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 23d
I also like to reduce the likelihood of being understood.
bort@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 23d
:-)
Danquebec@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 22d
English-speakers are really unlucky to have one of the most ambiguous word for situations where the need for clarity is of such great importance, especially as it concerns safety, even saving lives.
valar@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 23d
Cuz the prefix "in-" can mean both "not" (as in invalid) and "to cause to be" (as in indebted)
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 23d
But why?
harmbugler@piefed.social · 9 pts · 23d
Yes.
capt_wolf@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 23d
Romantic words were incorporated differently into other languages as the Roman Empire's influence spread. Words like inflammable have more direct Latin roots than words like indebt. So where Inflammable comes directy from the latin inflammo, indebt came from old French and middle English, going from something like endetter and endetten, using the root word dete and dette, but stemming from the root Latin word, debitum. Then en became in at some point.
That's how I understood it anyway through a very short amount of google searching. Anyone feel free to correct me.
Danquebec@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 22d
As a French-speaker, it has always been my instinctual understanding from seeing the word and knowing how English has taken words from Latin and French.
capt_wolf@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
I just wish they'd taught it as a skill when I took languages in school. Reading became sooooo much easier once I understood.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Because modern English is a combination of ancient Celtic languages with the various languages of the British Isles's numerous populators and conquering forces across history, including but not limited to: Latin, German, Norse, and French. And spelling wasn't really standardized until the printing press was invented, due in part to class stratification. But that's another story lol. Suffice it to say, it's more than a bit of a hodgepodge and you just gotta take it for what it is.
Danquebec@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 22d
What words come from Celtic languages? I thought it was all Germanic with Latin and French words being borrowed later.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22d
You won't be too surprised by some of them actually: bog, bourbon, druid, shamrock, corgi, whiskey, crumpet. Others you'll find here have more circuitous routes where maybe just one phoneme stems from old Gaelic or something, into Latin, into Germanic or Old French, then into Old English, like "ambassador." I'm guessing most of the really Celtic words are used in the British Isles more than elsewhere in the English-speaking world.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social · 1 pts · 23d
Where the words come from. Remember: English is many languages in a trench coat, not really its own set of hard rules.
Hell, even languages with hard rules like Japanese have some exceptions even without the modern trend of borrowing words from other languages!
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
In French you can say ininflammable
Scrollone@feddit.it · 1 pts · 23d
Also in Italian: infiammabile
Equinox1289@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 23d
Cause the verb is inflame and means to place a flame in on on something, as opposed to not flame. The problem being in both inflammable and the issue the OP of the image is the notion of re-bracketing. Rather than think of it as [inflame]able it gets converted into in[flammable] in the minds of new readers/listeners which flips the in- prefix meaning to not rather than in/on like it is supposed to be.
Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
Also "off" meaning both off and on
The alarm went off (the alarm started) The light went off (the light suddenly stopped producing light)
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social · 2 pts · 23d
Went off really just means everything :3. "Wow you really went off on that guy" = yelled at someone, "the milk went off" = spoiled, "we went off on an adventure" = left to travel and so on
Danquebec@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 22d
As a non-native English speaker I sometimes struggle with those words added after verbs: off, on, up, down, etc.
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social · 1 pts · 22d
One that used to confuse me when I started english was "on a bus", "on a plane", but "in a car", so I can see where all those words can get confusing :3
Cliff@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
I went off my head reading this
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Latin
TabbsTheBat@pawb.social · 3 pts · 23d
Bah! Latin. Always making everything more difficult than it needs to be
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
Should have been enflammable
5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org · 20 pts · 23d
Let me present to you a genre-classic from Germany:
umFAHREN -> to drive around something or somebody.
UMfahren -> to drive against something or somebody in a way it/they fall over.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 22d
It is the same in Dutch: omvaren can mean both sailing around and sailing over.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 23d
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 23d
You seem unaware at how, while French is steered by a committee of linguists, English is steered by a mob of autofellatic influencerati fame-whores, all looking for differentiation and trends to manufacture. So fetch.
Knossos@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 23d
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
stormeuh@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 23d
The Académie Française is absolutely not a "committee of linguists". They're a bunch of rich conservatives who are way too high on nationalism, and they are infamous for going against the consensus of linguists (who they supposedly consult).
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Psh, English is like half French, and prescriptivism is bad linguistics.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 12 pts · 23d
At the end, both are the same.
You end up with something that isn't locked.
pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de · 9 pts · 23d
I want my front door to be unlock-able, I don't want it to be un-lockable.
MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
The first one isn't locked unless you unlock it.
EffortlessGrace@piefed.social · 10 pts · 22d
Yes, throughout history, in fact.
And to answer the meme's question, it can have either definition based on the context of usage.
_skj@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 23d
Depends on emphasis. Said with normal stress on the first syllable is "able to be unlocked".
But if you pronounce it with extra emphasis on both of the first two syllables with a bit of a pause between, I think most people would think "not able to be locked". Very context dependent though
Orangenkuchen@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 22d
Redminds of the German "umfahren" (run over) which is the exact opposit of "umfahren" (drive around). (First is pronounced with a tiny pause after the second letter; the other is not.)
Chaf@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 22d
Even better is "Haare wachsen lassen". One meaning is letting your hair grow, the other is waxing your hair. Pronounced exactly the same
Zgierwoj@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 23d
When you say that something is easily unlockable the second way sounds clunky, but both convey the same message that whatever it is, it is not secure
khanh@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 21d
almost always "able to be unlocked". "not able to be locked" is usually "non-lockable" or "not lockable".
weps@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 22d
could be both
maybe it's a homonym
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 23d
Highly illockable
unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 23d
I would never use that word in either context, neither one is coherent. I would say, Picard, where is Beverly Crusher! She must shackle me, before I am overcome!
Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 22d
The issue is the fact that the opposite action of locking is called unlocking and not something like delocking.
TheBrideWoreCrimson@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 22d
Sokath, his eyes uncoverable.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 23d
I would say "non-lockable" means can't be locked, and "unlockable" means can be changed from locked to unlocked, implying also being lockable.
But to answer the question, yes we are making up language as we go along. For one thing we've always done that, but recently the trend has accelerated as people strive to reduce complex ideas to simple, overgeneralized slang to avoid having to think as much or do as much thumb-typing.
Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 23d
Both. It is already been locked and therefore cannot be "locked"; simultaneously because it is locked, it is able to be unlocked.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 22d
I think they're saying that "unlockable" could mean that its not possible to lock said door so no, not already locked
Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
The door... Is locked. Due to this fact, the door cannot be locked, as it is already... Locked. The door, is un-lockable, as it cannot be made into the locked state due to already being there
devfuuu@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 23d
Yes!
Strider@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 22d
Curse you! 🙃
Wataba@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 22d
Non-lockable feels like the right term.
'Un-' directly implies undoing, an action. 'Non-' implies a status, a non-possibility.
That's my two cents.
bhamlin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22d
Illockable
Rokin@leminal.space · 4 pts · 23d
Nice shower thought.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 22d
Literally yes, we are.
Cause language is a toolkit to communicate ideas, and a toolkit frozen in glass is a useless toolkit.
You need to swap out that hammer when it starts getting damaged, or put back a screwdriver when you find out you need it again, or add new tools when you find that the tools you have now aren't fit to purpose.
And sure, there's some loose screws at the bottom of the bag, but they don't harm anything, and very occasionally they come in useful.
arctanthrope@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
to unambiguously say "unable to be locked" would be "nonlockable"
axh@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Yes
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 23d
*None-lockable
modus@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 21d
If you can't unlock it, is it really a lock?
allergymemes@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 19d
Bro solved it using philosophy. Actually the smartest thing I’ve seen on this platform so far
BigBrownBeaver@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22d
Yes.
MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22d
I'm pretty sure one of those has a hyphen
Jarix@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22d
Why would unlockable mean able to be unlocked?
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 22d
unlock-able = able to be unlocked
un-lockable = unable to be locked
Jarix@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 22d
Thank you. I feel dumb now lol
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 22d
no need for that, language is weird
bhamlin@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22d
Contranyms are fun.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 22d
Now I'm trying to think of a circumstance where something can be unlocked but not relocked. Like in a game you can just make a new account and achievements are relocked.
Tacky4092@feddit.org · 3 pts · 22d
You are able to undo the locking. It's almost like reading comprehension is shit nowadays.
MyVeryRealName@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 22d
Why can it not mean unable to be locked?
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 22d
Because people don't generally use it that way and language changes and evolves based largely on how it is used.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 22d
un-lockable implies it is unable to be locked.
unlock-able implies that it is able to be unlocked.
It's a homonym.
bitteroldcoot@piefed.social · 3 pts · 23d
It means it gives the illusion of being locked, until an Israeli tech company plugs into it and unlocks it for the cops.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-tech-company-says-it-can-break-into-all-iphones-ever-made-some-androids/
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 23d
/showerthoughts, no?
chunes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
For me, personally.. it means able to be unlocked. If I want to say the other thing, I say "it doesn't lock."
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22d
Locks should always be able to be reversed. Locking something is restricting access, not denying it entirely. You don't weld a door shut and call it locked.
Poe didn't write a tale about Fortunato being locked downstairs.
"Sealed", "buried", "entombed", "immured" - all perfectly good terms for closing access to something with the intent of the closure being permanent.
CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22d
Unlockable = can’t be locked
Unopenable = can’t be opened
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 22d
Awe that's cute, trying to apply consistency across English words
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22d
It's not about openability, it's about lockability. A container could unopenable without being lockable.
sit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 22d
Depends on the cawntex
abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 21d
Yep. Language can be funny like that. You are either modifying the adjective "lockable" with the prefix "un-", or you are modifying the verb "unlock" into an adjective by adding "-able" at the end. Words can have multiple definitions, yay!
Skymt@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 22d
Both definitions refer to the same thing, right? A locked lock is unlockable. It cannot be locked further, AND it can be unlocked.
Vice versa for the unlocked lock.
Dadifer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
I would say "un" implies a reversal of some state. More clear would be "not lockable", so most people would use this. Unlockable is much more likely to mean able to reverse the state of being locked.
DonkeyStar@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Nothing is unlockable with the right epoxy.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Or with enough epoxy.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
I don't think I've ever used the word "unlockable".
"The closet doors in my house don't have locks", is probably what I'd say.
nyctre@piefed.social · 1 pts · 23d
I've only ever seen it used for video games where there's content that you can unlock through some achievement or feat or something.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 22d
So how do you call these types of character?
VenusianMars@cupoftea.social · 2 pts · 23d
@The_Picard_Maneuver You know we are... every rule gets a 'but maybe', 'except for when', 'never mind, nothing means what you think and everything means something AND nothing at all but also whatever you want it to mean.'
wieson@feddit.org · 2 pts · 22d
Can we discern via stress?
UNlockable - can be opened.
unLOCKable - cannot be locked
vegafjord@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 21d
both, but not at the same time. words change meaning with context. thats why there often are several definitions of a single word.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 22d
Back in like 1st or 2nd grade the teacher introduced us to context clues for reading comprehension.
ccunning@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
It's the same thing with “unsweet,” which has apparently become the universal term at food establishments when you want unsweetened tea. I’m in the American South, so I encounter this constantly.
But what the hell is “unsweet”? What does that even mean? Did they sweeten it and then somehow take the sweetness back out? Was it accomplished through evaporation? Reverse osmosis? Some sort of industrial-scale anti-sugar process?
“Unsweet” isn't a word.
So when I order, I specifically say, “unsweetened tea,” and the server inevitably responds, “Unsweet?”
“Gotcha.”
No. You got nothing. I said unsweetened.
starik@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 23d
Words are often shortened. It reduces the number of vowels and makes communication quicker and easier. Do you also have an issue with these?:
math
gym
bike
fridge
TV
ad
lab
info
photo
bitfucker@programming.dev · 1 pts · 22d
Photo is a word on its own tho so that also creates confusion if you shortened photography to photo. "Oh, I do photo for a living".
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 22d
I'm not even sure how to respond to this nonsense. Unsweet isn't a shortening of unsweetened.
Also, TV is an abbreviation.
starik@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 22d
Unsweet is a shortening of unsweetened.
TV is a shortening of television. (abbreviations are a type of shortening)
You’re right, though. You didn’t know how to respond.
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 22d
The amount of smug confidence emanating from your comments is honestly stifling, especially considering how incredibly wrong you are. But let me go ahead and respond to you now in a much more meaningful way.
“Unsweet” is not a clipping of “unsweetened.” “Unsweet” is an adjective meaning that sweetness has been removed from something. “Unsweetened” means that sweetness was never added in the first place. They are two different words with two different meanings. When a server uses “unsweet” to mean “unsweetened,” they are using the word incorrectly and in the wrong sense.
“TV” is an initialism, which is a type of abbreviation. How you arrived at the conclusion that “TV” is simply a shortening of the word “television,” I have no idea. It is quite obvious, however, that you are not fully aware of how the English language actually functions. The fact that you are able to articulate yourself in English at all is frankly amazing, especially considering the sheer amount of smugness following you around.
guy@piefed.social · 1 pts · 22d
You sound like a lovely person to have a discussion with
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 21d
I corrected him nicely one time. Then dude caught an attitude. So the bitch slap followed.
Don't know why you have a problem with this.
guy@piefed.social · 1 pts · 21d
Because you come across as rude and high and mighty :)
You may be unaware of how others might percieve you and it is often helpful to have that pointed out in case you want to contemplate
starik@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 21d
Adjectives can be shortened. Like in the case of “unsweet”, for example!
Do you also think they have to remove lead from gasoline to make unleaded gas? (Sorry for using the word “gas”; we know how you feel about shortened words.) “Un” is a prefix that can just mean “not” sometimes, as in “unintelligent” ;)
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20d
It’s 7:30 a.m. I literally just woke up because my wife needs to make sure the teenager gets up to catch the bus to school. And as I lay here trying to accept the world as it is, with the current economic and political climate, as I do every morning, I find myself needing to explain to people that “unsweetened” and “unleaded” serve essentially the same mechanical linguistic function: they describe something to which the relevant substance was not added. Sweetener was not added to the beverage. Lead was not added to the gasoline.
As the kids mill out of the house complaining about school and the general condition of their overtaxed lives, I wonder whether you have ever used the word “unlead.”
No. I would venture not.
In fact, I would bet good money that you have never used that word, nor would you consider it a shortening or clipping of “unleaded.”
Looks like the teenager has finally departed. The irony that she is going to a public school where she will be taught the nuance of the English language in an academic capacity does not escape me, particularly since I apparently have to deconstruct an insult aimed at me just to demonstrate how stupid it is.
The word “unintelligent” possesses the same basic construction as “unleaded” and “unsweetened.” The prefix “un-” can indicate the absence or negation of something. “Unintelligent” means not intelligent. “Unsweetened” means not sweetened. “Unleaded” means not leaded.
And yet, apparently, somewhere along the way, I have been placed in the position of explaining basic English morphology to someone who thought they had discovered some devastating linguistic observation.
I now sit on the toilet taking my morning constitutional and wondering why I want to insult you in the meanest way possible. Someone has already told me that I am being arrogant and mean, and, honestly, I cannot think of a compelling reason to disagree with them.
But I am going to do it anyway.
starik@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 20d
This has to be a bit you’re doing. If not, I really feel sorry for that family.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 23d
There is a lot of unsense out there these days. I saw "unsweet" on my favorite cold brewed coffee.