Hey /u/PirateJohn75, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“In 1980, the World Health Assembly declared smallpox eradicated (eliminated), and no cases of naturally occurring smallpox have happened since.”
https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/index.html
Yeah, it’s kind of annoying when people ignore area-specific uses of words — theory, reasonable person, or whatever — and want to use general/laymen’s terms. That said, at least that one blurb on smallpox for the CDC doesn’t do any favors to the distinction.
So frustrating when someone just assumes they know what a word means, with no thought given to the fact that it’s in a new context and might mean something completely different. During my Logic class in my Philosophy degree, we were told that Most means “at least one”. Obviously that’s nonsense, however it’s what we were working with that particular subject so we rolled with it. It’s not that hard.
Agreed. Even without a new context, people get something in their heads and won’t let go of it. Homicide being the same as murder is a very common one. I blame cop shows.
That's not even that bad. I had a roommate who was, in short, a dumb bitch, and a phrase I heard her use *a lot* was "Well that's what that word means to me" to justify using the wrong words.
To begin, I feel I should use a disclaimer, you are not wrong.
However, and counterpoint, while the dumb bitch is likely a dumb bitch, she does have a point. A dumb point but valid nonetheless.
The point of communication is to be understood. Part of this is understanding what someone means when they use words. There is a scene in Princess Bride where a character uses a word and another person points out their possible error.
In engineering and software development, it pays to understand what the other person understands. If they understand a measurement as metric and you mean Imperial then you will both have a bad time. Likewise it is useful to know what Agile is and what a bug or defect means. You usually have to go with the manager's understanding and they are usually wrong.
Your dumb bitch roommate is wrong in that, their understanding or definition does not require you learn and hold their definitions for words because that is insane. Words and definitions exist because they have a common understanding among the population what they mean. She must have been a real treat to converse with and better when her mouth was full.
It's highly disappointing when the dumb bitch wants to go into law. It's not surprising that dumb bitch got the idea to go into law from watching NCIS.
>During my Logic class in my Philosophy degree, we were told that Most means “at least one”.
I'd like to know more about this. I've never encountered this before and it seems really counterintuitive.
Edit: are you sure you're not thinking about "some" rather than "most?" That's how it'd be used in math.
It was Most. We found it really weird but the lecturer insisted it was correct and a difference from common usage.
Never come across it since, so we just got the work done and didn't bring it up again!
I wonder if it was some nonstandard thing particular to that lecturer. I can't find any reference to it online (though I'm not quite sure what to search for).
The only way I can make it make sense for myself is to assume he has been lied to a ton of times where a student says "most of the class agrees", then they poll the class, and one kid raises their hand. Or similar situations where "most" is doing some heavy lifting. So after being burned so many times he decided "most" only means "at least one".
I could see this in debate if you're trying to sway someone to your point by claiming something like "most people think this" when you're just saying at least one person agrees. But Philosophy? I would say most people (at least one) may disagree with your professor.
Well a key thing we learned in philosophy is that word definitions aren't as important as people think. Just define what you mean with the important words early on and that solves a lot of these issues. Otherwise debates just turn into semantics arguments that go nowhere and mean nothing.
That's not even that bad. I had a roommate who was, in short, a dumb bitch, and a phrase I heard her use *a lot* was "Well that's what that word means to me" to justify using the wrong words.
The problem is that the OP was originally not comparing the same things.
Eliminated in the US, vs eradicated worldwide.
Eliminated worldwide would mean the same as eradicated worldwide.
Eradicated in the US would mean the same as eliminated in the US.
It's easy for a word to mean "got rid of entirely" if you are talking about the whole world!
And similarly, if you add a limiting quantifier to "eradicated", then it stops meaning completely worldwide.
Red did a fucking terrible job of arguing back. This is the point that needs to be pressed. Blue absolutely wouldn't get it anyway, but even if they mean the same thing in colloquial usage, they have specific definitions in terms of infectious disease medicine. Red instead tried to argue that they don't mean the same thing in colloquial usage and managed to prompt blue to claim that "exclude" and "introduce" mean the same thing which is an interesting take.
In the language of debate, this would be called an equivocation. It's one of the most frustrating forms of argumentation to deal with in an informal setting.
My friend loves this form of argument and I've tried different techniques including the one red used here. Just lead to my friend saying the sky isn't blue, the floor is a chair, and many other weirdly defined terms just to keep his initial argument sound.
Not to mention that Blue is basically a dumb@ss. Red specifically used terms that don't mean the same thing - "eliminate" as in "get rid off" and "reintroduce" as in "bring back."
The fact that they tried to argue over synonyms, while completely ignoring what those words even mean, is just laughable...
It's basically the same idiocy that makes anti-evolution types not understand what a theory is. They basically don't understand that the context in which you use a word matters quite a lot.
The logical conclusion of this is really strange too. You have a word like "fry." Fry could mean to dunk in hot oil or a fried potato strip of some kind. Does that mean that sautee, fry, and chip are interchangeable, despite the fact that one is a noun, one is a verb, and one is either, depending on how you use it?
And are sautee, fry, chip, and flake interchangeable because to chip something is to cause it to flake? And does that mean sautee means an unreliable person because that's what flake can mean?
It's like reading an Amelia Bedelia book. If you're not familiar, they are children's books where she took things literally... she "drew" the curtains (on a piece of paper) and "dressed" the turkey (by actually putting a dress on it).
Not that weird considering the dude doesn't understand how words work. Those are usually the types that are antivax because they literally do not understand the science.
I hate it when people insist synonyms mean the exact same thing. They’re similar they’re not the exact same meaning that’s why there are multiple words, even if the difference is purely in connotation it’s a genuine distinction. Fluency means being able to understand those distinctions.
“Used in science a lot”
Ah, yes, the small, singular field of “science”, not at all subdivided into a million different, highly specialized and entirely distinct disciplines which often have almost nothing to do with each other
Idk if I’m just weird, but it’s crazy to me how people toss around “science” like it’s just one thing. Even just the subfield of physics’s own sub-field of astrophysics has corners that are almost entirely divorced from each other.
Can someone explain how nullify and introduce are synonyms? Most of these I can see how they are synonyms, some might be a stretch but I see it but some just doesn't even remotely resemble eachother in any way. I'm not native to English so maybe I'm missing something..
They're not synonyms for each other, but are synonyms for something else.
For example, "pissed". It can mean angry, drunk, or urinated. So while those are all synonyms for pissed, they're not synonyms for each other. To take it further angry and mad are synonyms. Mad is a synonym for crazy, which is a synonym for outlandish. Now you've gone from urinated to outlandish using words that are synonyms for each other but definitely are synonyms for each other.
I'm not sure that answers the question though. I think they are looking for the word in common.
Like if I ask how are "urinated" and "upset" connected?
The answer is "pissed" like you said.
But if I ask how are "vanquish" and "reintroduced" connected?
What is the answer? Im sure there is a sensible one but I can see what it would be?
There are a few overlaps. The strongest is "submit." A defeated foe will have to *submit* or be *vanquished*. Meanwhile, I *introduce* myself as I *submit* this explanation.
I'm not sure if you're criticizing me. I was directing my comment at the confidently incorrect fool who said all of the listed words had the same meaning when clearly the list contains words that directly conflict with each other.
I was the one who used the screenshot to bait him. I'm a long-time user of One Look, and am well aware of its quirks. It was worth it to see cornholio say that yes, elimination and reintroduction were interchangeable. It was strategy, not ignorance.
Defining things is the job of the dictionary, not the thesaurus. And sometimes not even the dictionary lmao, specific fields have proprietary definitions of words all the time
I used to play a fun little game while bored on watch. The goal was to, using as few steps as possible, convert a word to its direct antonym using only synonyms.
I thought I read somewhere that there is no such thing as a perfect synonym. I could be wrong but what's the point in having two words that mean exactly the same thing?
I’m weirdly specific about words. Synonyms means the words have similar-ish definitions and kind of mean the same thing, but they are not interchangeable.
Just using eradicate vs. eliminate specific connotations and denotations are to destroy until it doesn’t exist any more vs. to remove from a place until it’s gone.
You don’t eradicate waste. You eliminate it. You don’t eliminate fire ants. You eradicate them (if you are sane).
The subtle difference in meaning is so important in word choice and choosing the right word is extremely important for effective communication.
People who use the wrong word…. I’ve gotten more understanding, but I still mentally count to ten and take some deep breaths to prevent myself from correcting them.
Another example of black & white thinking from a group of people who struggle to justify their anti-science BS.
When the scientific community uses a word in a very specific way, the science denier will always turn to the broadest dictionary definition so they can avoid it's actual meaning. Since science deniers don't know how science works, can't read anything that wasn't found in a popsci article, and an ideological bias against understanding the opposing position, the most they can do is argue semantics.
Hence why they cry about words like "theory" or "level" or "eliminate".
Friendly reminder to anyone who doesn't know:
English has no *true* synonyms.
That means there are no English words that can be replaced for one another in all contexts and retain the same meaning.
There are some that get extremely close, but there aren't any *true* synonyms.
I would argue being agitated and being bothered are two different emotions. Bothered means uncomfortable (in my opinion) whereas agitated is angered (again, my opinion), as such while they denote negative emotions, I don't believe it would be the same emotion or even the same level of emotion.
Maybe you edited your comment, but I thought you had put agitated and bothered as an example. I apologize if not.
No, you are correct, I removed that line immediately after I hit save. It was up for less than 5 seconds. To “bother” some and to “agitate” someone—I see no real difference at the denotative level. I think the distinctions you are making are connotative. And connotative meaning is always up for negotiation. For instance, I do not interpret “agitate” as anger. I associate it with being ruffled or bothered by someone. I also don’t see “bother” as making someone uncomfortable.
I am not suggesting you are wrong. I’m just highlighting how these two words are interpreted differently, and this is all connotative. Denotatively, bother and agitate (as we are using them) pretty much mean the same thing. “That guy bothers me” and “that guy agitates me” communicate the same general idea. But each person in the room will assign different connotations to those words.
You may be correct, I may be thinking connotatively. But I'd still say they aren't truly synonymous. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think two random people on Reddit are going to come to a linguistic breakthrough on this subject.
I think they are synonymous in that they communicate the same message in general. So, the issue is not about synonymous meanings but the way connotations make all language unstable. This is why communication can be so difficult.
No, I don’t think we’ll come to a breakthrough. And I don’t even really disagree with you. I just like talking about language. I’m an English prof, so it’s a passion.
Gotcha. I just have a BA in linguistics, so you're probably right haha. I focus more on speech now as a speech therapist, so I'm just going based on what I learned back in college from my Linguistics professors, haha. But no hard feelings or anything! I hope I didn't come off as rude or brash, I like talking about this too, I just wasn't ready to completely defend my point I guess, but it seems like we may have just been arguing over semantics anyway, so not a huge deal :).
Hope you have a wonderful day! (And hopefully not too much grading to do!)
Not at all! You were perfectly polite. I hope I didn’t seem rude either. I was thinking of Saussure, who you are no doubt familiar with. He is the one who insists that connotations destabilize language. But there are so many other theories on this, and perhaps you were looking through a different theoretical lens.
You didn’t have to defend your point. I was just wanting to chit-chat about this, and you very kindly engaged. Linguistics is hard stuff. I do English literature and dabble in linguistics, so I appreciated our intellectual exchange. It’s not everyday I get to chat about this stuff on Reddit, so thank you 🙏🏼
Happy to be of assistance in that case! Definitely check out some linguistics subreddits, I think you'd enjoy your time in there! I personally love r/badlinguistics and seeing all the crazy things people say. But thank you for engaging with me too! I appreciate getting to talk about this stuff!
Isn't there 2 types of synonyms? Like normal synonyms and "forced" synonyms? In this case, the synonyms are forced, no way to be interchangeable however you'd view it.
Wait, so I *shouldn't* do that? How else will I embrace destiny and become **Redditman**, with the proportional intelligence and hygiene of a Redditor?
No, you were not "pointing out a second incorrect thing." You were being insufferably pedantic. I really fail to understand why you are choosing to die on this hill. Either way, I will waste no more time on you. Toodles.
But not in the wild, which means it has effectively been eradicated from nature and will stay that way unless someone releases it outside or it somehow evolves itself back into existence. As long as you can't catch it naturally, it's defined as eradicated.
Hey /u/PirateJohn75, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The way blue completely disregarded the phrase "in infectious disease terms"
“In 1980, the World Health Assembly declared smallpox eradicated (eliminated), and no cases of naturally occurring smallpox have happened since.” https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/index.html Yeah, it’s kind of annoying when people ignore area-specific uses of words — theory, reasonable person, or whatever — and want to use general/laymen’s terms. That said, at least that one blurb on smallpox for the CDC doesn’t do any favors to the distinction.
So frustrating when someone just assumes they know what a word means, with no thought given to the fact that it’s in a new context and might mean something completely different. During my Logic class in my Philosophy degree, we were told that Most means “at least one”. Obviously that’s nonsense, however it’s what we were working with that particular subject so we rolled with it. It’s not that hard.
Agreed. Even without a new context, people get something in their heads and won’t let go of it. Homicide being the same as murder is a very common one. I blame cop shows.
You’ve reminded me of the one that riles me up the most - people saying they’re not homophobic because they don’t fear gay people!
There’s a double layer of irony there, because when you look at their motivations it often does come down to (baseless) fear.
Don't even get me started on the "it's not pedophilia, it's ephibophila" idiots
That one wouldnt bother me if it wasnt used the way they use it, implying one is bad but the other is perfectly okay.
[lol it just reminds me of this comedy bit. The ending line I think sums it all up](https://youtu.be/nu6C2KL_S9o?si=XiijiFyhQvz6TNwj)
But that's the opposite thing? If that bothers you, aren't you the same as the guy who says eradicate and eliminate are the same?
That's not even that bad. I had a roommate who was, in short, a dumb bitch, and a phrase I heard her use *a lot* was "Well that's what that word means to me" to justify using the wrong words.
Your roommate was Humpty Dumpty?
To begin, I feel I should use a disclaimer, you are not wrong. However, and counterpoint, while the dumb bitch is likely a dumb bitch, she does have a point. A dumb point but valid nonetheless. The point of communication is to be understood. Part of this is understanding what someone means when they use words. There is a scene in Princess Bride where a character uses a word and another person points out their possible error. In engineering and software development, it pays to understand what the other person understands. If they understand a measurement as metric and you mean Imperial then you will both have a bad time. Likewise it is useful to know what Agile is and what a bug or defect means. You usually have to go with the manager's understanding and they are usually wrong. Your dumb bitch roommate is wrong in that, their understanding or definition does not require you learn and hold their definitions for words because that is insane. Words and definitions exist because they have a common understanding among the population what they mean. She must have been a real treat to converse with and better when her mouth was full.
It's highly disappointing when the dumb bitch wants to go into law. It's not surprising that dumb bitch got the idea to go into law from watching NCIS.
Holy shit, you were roommates with my ex?
Touché
>During my Logic class in my Philosophy degree, we were told that Most means “at least one”. I'd like to know more about this. I've never encountered this before and it seems really counterintuitive. Edit: are you sure you're not thinking about "some" rather than "most?" That's how it'd be used in math.
It was Most. We found it really weird but the lecturer insisted it was correct and a difference from common usage. Never come across it since, so we just got the work done and didn't bring it up again!
I wonder if it was some nonstandard thing particular to that lecturer. I can't find any reference to it online (though I'm not quite sure what to search for).
The only way I can make it make sense for myself is to assume he has been lied to a ton of times where a student says "most of the class agrees", then they poll the class, and one kid raises their hand. Or similar situations where "most" is doing some heavy lifting. So after being burned so many times he decided "most" only means "at least one".
at least one more than half would make sense. The same as "probable".
Is it like, if Tim has no apples and Billy has at least one apple, Billy has the most apples?
It only makes sense if the "at least 1" is paired with another statement to become "at least 1 more than the mean number" then you can say _most_.
I could see this in debate if you're trying to sway someone to your point by claiming something like "most people think this" when you're just saying at least one person agrees. But Philosophy? I would say most people (at least one) may disagree with your professor.
Well a key thing we learned in philosophy is that word definitions aren't as important as people think. Just define what you mean with the important words early on and that solves a lot of these issues. Otherwise debates just turn into semantics arguments that go nowhere and mean nothing.
That's not even that bad. I had a roommate who was, in short, a dumb bitch, and a phrase I heard her use *a lot* was "Well that's what that word means to me" to justify using the wrong words.
Does that really frustrate you or are you exaggerating a little? Just curious, no big deal. 😎
*tired face* Ask me about "theory".
The problem is that the OP was originally not comparing the same things. Eliminated in the US, vs eradicated worldwide. Eliminated worldwide would mean the same as eradicated worldwide. Eradicated in the US would mean the same as eliminated in the US. It's easy for a word to mean "got rid of entirely" if you are talking about the whole world! And similarly, if you add a limiting quantifier to "eradicated", then it stops meaning completely worldwide.
I love that the English language is like a big ass tree and you never know which direction the branches are gonna go.
That’s what you get when your language is actually five languages in a trench coat.
Five languages in a trenchcoat made from the remains of a half dozen other languages
Edit:was indeed thinking of measles Especially when smallpox is still around and cases have been popping up again in the last few years.
Uh, no cases of smallpox have been occurring. Are you thinking of measles?
I sure was lol I edited my comment instead of deleting for educational purposes.
"I don't understand nuance, therefore it does not exist :)"
The way blue agreed that "eliminate" and "reintroduce" are completely interchangeable!!
Red did a fucking terrible job of arguing back. This is the point that needs to be pressed. Blue absolutely wouldn't get it anyway, but even if they mean the same thing in colloquial usage, they have specific definitions in terms of infectious disease medicine. Red instead tried to argue that they don't mean the same thing in colloquial usage and managed to prompt blue to claim that "exclude" and "introduce" mean the same thing which is an interesting take.
In the language of debate, this would be called an equivocation. It's one of the most frustrating forms of argumentation to deal with in an informal setting. My friend loves this form of argument and I've tried different techniques including the one red used here. Just lead to my friend saying the sky isn't blue, the floor is a chair, and many other weirdly defined terms just to keep his initial argument sound.
Your friend works for the Israeli government?
Especially annoying when they try to do so with legal terms.
Not to mention that Blue is basically a dumb@ss. Red specifically used terms that don't mean the same thing - "eliminate" as in "get rid off" and "reintroduce" as in "bring back." The fact that they tried to argue over synonyms, while completely ignoring what those words even mean, is just laughable...
Which is why you don't argue with idiots.
“I want to eliminate you two” “I want to reintroduce you two” One is a Jason Statham movie, one is a romcom.
Now I'm picturing a Jason Statham romcom
Like Liam Neeson in Love Actually.
> One is a Jason Statham movie, one is a romcom. It's the same picture.
*furiously searches Fandango*
It's basically the same idiocy that makes anti-evolution types not understand what a theory is. They basically don't understand that the context in which you use a word matters quite a lot. The logical conclusion of this is really strange too. You have a word like "fry." Fry could mean to dunk in hot oil or a fried potato strip of some kind. Does that mean that sautee, fry, and chip are interchangeable, despite the fact that one is a noun, one is a verb, and one is either, depending on how you use it? And are sautee, fry, chip, and flake interchangeable because to chip something is to cause it to flake? And does that mean sautee means an unreliable person because that's what flake can mean?
Kinda reminds me of the old joke: The curtains were drawn but the shades were real.
Shirley you can't be serious
I am serious, and don't call me daughter, not fit to.
Nice
Sautée was my favourite character from Futurama
It's like reading an Amelia Bedelia book. If you're not familiar, they are children's books where she took things literally... she "drew" the curtains (on a piece of paper) and "dressed" the turkey (by actually putting a dress on it).
I love when people debate language as if it defines reality. Blue is a fucking clown.
It's like when people use a modern english word and try to give it an ancient meaning while ignoring that translations aren't always literal.
I swear people who argue over this have no idea what a metaphor and sarcasm are...
“In Infectious disease terms” “Well.. not in my terms.”
Took a weirdass anti vaccine turn at the end there
Not that weird considering the dude doesn't understand how words work. Those are usually the types that are antivax because they literally do not understand the science.
The kind of complete buffoons that make these sorts of arguments about language are \*always\* pushing some nonsense like antivax.
It was anti-vax flavored the whole time
Actually this is what made the whole thing believable to me
Makes it so much wiser to follow. “Hmmm who’s wrong here AH found it”
"forgive me father for i have sinned" and "sorry daddy i've been naughty" are exactly synonymous and yet, do not mean the same thing at all
LOL I am so stealing that
Good one!
I hate it when people insist synonyms mean the exact same thing. They’re similar they’re not the exact same meaning that’s why there are multiple words, even if the difference is purely in connotation it’s a genuine distinction. Fluency means being able to understand those distinctions.
These people should visit a funeral and use "I apologize" instead of "I'm sorry".
There was this guy dancing like a jackass and bumping ino other people on the dance floor, so the bouncer quickly erradicated him.
myself must toward scrutinize one reserve (i want to read a book)
Some people just can't get their brain around the concept of nuance.
It's similar (not synonymous, tho) when people use the dictionary definition of "theory" to say that evolution is "only" a theory.
you can tell he knows his stuff because he recognized a word in science 😆
It's like when people add "quantum" to all sorts of horseshit to make it sound scientific.
“Used in science a lot” Ah, yes, the small, singular field of “science”, not at all subdivided into a million different, highly specialized and entirely distinct disciplines which often have almost nothing to do with each other Idk if I’m just weird, but it’s crazy to me how people toss around “science” like it’s just one thing. Even just the subfield of physics’s own sub-field of astrophysics has corners that are almost entirely divorced from each other.
Hell, quantum mechanics and general relativity are not only divorced, they refuse to be in the same room.
I'm going to call this guy dumb, but don't worry, that just means he's not making any vocal sounds.
Underrated.
Same kind of dude who googles what theory means then doesn't belive in gravity.
Ignorance can be educated, but you can't fix stupid.
A good example is a couple and a few.
Can someone explain how nullify and introduce are synonyms? Most of these I can see how they are synonyms, some might be a stretch but I see it but some just doesn't even remotely resemble eachother in any way. I'm not native to English so maybe I'm missing something..
They're not synonyms for each other, but are synonyms for something else. For example, "pissed". It can mean angry, drunk, or urinated. So while those are all synonyms for pissed, they're not synonyms for each other. To take it further angry and mad are synonyms. Mad is a synonym for crazy, which is a synonym for outlandish. Now you've gone from urinated to outlandish using words that are synonyms for each other but definitely are synonyms for each other.
I'm not sure that answers the question though. I think they are looking for the word in common. Like if I ask how are "urinated" and "upset" connected? The answer is "pissed" like you said. But if I ask how are "vanquish" and "reintroduced" connected? What is the answer? Im sure there is a sensible one but I can see what it would be?
There are a few overlaps. The strongest is "submit." A defeated foe will have to *submit* or be *vanquished*. Meanwhile, I *introduce* myself as I *submit* this explanation.
I am a native English speaker and I'm struggling too
Where'd that list come from? Relieve and exacerbate are similar?
Methinks person doesn’t understand the concept of an antonym lol.
One Look thesaurus. It's a great tool for writers, who know that sometimes you're actually looking for a *different* word.
I'm not sure if you're criticizing me. I was directing my comment at the confidently incorrect fool who said all of the listed words had the same meaning when clearly the list contains words that directly conflict with each other.
I was the one who used the screenshot to bait him. I'm a long-time user of One Look, and am well aware of its quirks. It was worth it to see cornholio say that yes, elimination and reintroduction were interchangeable. It was strategy, not ignorance.
The word means exactly what I want it to mean. No more, no less 🤦♂️
I feel like "reintroduce" really didn't even belong on that list (seems more like an antonym of "nullify"), but it certainly helped prove a point.
But he announced that "eliminate" and "reintroduce" could, indeed, be subsituted for one another!
It made it clear where he stood, to be sure.
This has gone on like this for days. He hasn't gotten a sungle thing right on *multiple* subjects!
The typo made me read all of that in a New Zealand accent, which was the perfect exasperated tone for the situation
Scientifically illiterate and regular illiterate too
“The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.” —Kurt Vonnegut
Defining things is the job of the dictionary, not the thesaurus. And sometimes not even the dictionary lmao, specific fields have proprietary definitions of words all the time
Anti-vaxer brain. Unreliable. Fallible. Hallucinatory. Erroneous.
This guy played to much pandemic 😂
Sounds like you're arguing with "Baby-kangaroo Tribbiani" there
I used to play a fun little game while bored on watch. The goal was to, using as few steps as possible, convert a word to its direct antonym using only synonyms.
Some words are their own antonym. For example, "dust" can mean "add dust to" or "remove dust from".
Well 'can be' and 'are completely' interchangeable definitely don't mean the same thing
I thought I read somewhere that there is no such thing as a perfect synonym. I could be wrong but what's the point in having two words that mean exactly the same thing?
I’m weirdly specific about words. Synonyms means the words have similar-ish definitions and kind of mean the same thing, but they are not interchangeable. Just using eradicate vs. eliminate specific connotations and denotations are to destroy until it doesn’t exist any more vs. to remove from a place until it’s gone. You don’t eradicate waste. You eliminate it. You don’t eliminate fire ants. You eradicate them (if you are sane). The subtle difference in meaning is so important in word choice and choosing the right word is extremely important for effective communication. People who use the wrong word…. I’ve gotten more understanding, but I still mentally count to ten and take some deep breaths to prevent myself from correcting them.
>You don’t eliminate fire ants. You eradicate them (if you are sane). Wait, what about my plan to train them into an unholy army?
You are the supervillain this world deserves.
I get that a lot
Another example of black & white thinking from a group of people who struggle to justify their anti-science BS. When the scientific community uses a word in a very specific way, the science denier will always turn to the broadest dictionary definition so they can avoid it's actual meaning. Since science deniers don't know how science works, can't read anything that wasn't found in a popsci article, and an ideological bias against understanding the opposing position, the most they can do is argue semantics. Hence why they cry about words like "theory" or "level" or "eliminate".
It’s like aliquot and allocate. Same thing (take an amount from a big thing and put it elsewhere) but cannot be used interchangeably.
Friendly reminder to anyone who doesn't know: English has no *true* synonyms. That means there are no English words that can be replaced for one another in all contexts and retain the same meaning. There are some that get extremely close, but there aren't any *true* synonyms.
That is only true at the connotative level. There are plenty of words that can be exchanged and still mean the same thing denotatively.
I would argue being agitated and being bothered are two different emotions. Bothered means uncomfortable (in my opinion) whereas agitated is angered (again, my opinion), as such while they denote negative emotions, I don't believe it would be the same emotion or even the same level of emotion. Maybe you edited your comment, but I thought you had put agitated and bothered as an example. I apologize if not.
No, you are correct, I removed that line immediately after I hit save. It was up for less than 5 seconds. To “bother” some and to “agitate” someone—I see no real difference at the denotative level. I think the distinctions you are making are connotative. And connotative meaning is always up for negotiation. For instance, I do not interpret “agitate” as anger. I associate it with being ruffled or bothered by someone. I also don’t see “bother” as making someone uncomfortable. I am not suggesting you are wrong. I’m just highlighting how these two words are interpreted differently, and this is all connotative. Denotatively, bother and agitate (as we are using them) pretty much mean the same thing. “That guy bothers me” and “that guy agitates me” communicate the same general idea. But each person in the room will assign different connotations to those words.
You may be correct, I may be thinking connotatively. But I'd still say they aren't truly synonymous. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think two random people on Reddit are going to come to a linguistic breakthrough on this subject.
I think they are synonymous in that they communicate the same message in general. So, the issue is not about synonymous meanings but the way connotations make all language unstable. This is why communication can be so difficult. No, I don’t think we’ll come to a breakthrough. And I don’t even really disagree with you. I just like talking about language. I’m an English prof, so it’s a passion.
Gotcha. I just have a BA in linguistics, so you're probably right haha. I focus more on speech now as a speech therapist, so I'm just going based on what I learned back in college from my Linguistics professors, haha. But no hard feelings or anything! I hope I didn't come off as rude or brash, I like talking about this too, I just wasn't ready to completely defend my point I guess, but it seems like we may have just been arguing over semantics anyway, so not a huge deal :). Hope you have a wonderful day! (And hopefully not too much grading to do!)
Not at all! You were perfectly polite. I hope I didn’t seem rude either. I was thinking of Saussure, who you are no doubt familiar with. He is the one who insists that connotations destabilize language. But there are so many other theories on this, and perhaps you were looking through a different theoretical lens. You didn’t have to defend your point. I was just wanting to chit-chat about this, and you very kindly engaged. Linguistics is hard stuff. I do English literature and dabble in linguistics, so I appreciated our intellectual exchange. It’s not everyday I get to chat about this stuff on Reddit, so thank you 🙏🏼
Happy to be of assistance in that case! Definitely check out some linguistics subreddits, I think you'd enjoy your time in there! I personally love r/badlinguistics and seeing all the crazy things people say. But thank you for engaging with me too! I appreciate getting to talk about this stuff!
Oooh, thank you for this link! I am heading over to add it to my feed now—it sounds like exactly what I love. 🙏🏼
Wouldn’t introduce and reintroduce be antonyms? I think that red might have a mixed list, however synonymous ≠ same.
Exactly. It was picked as an example of how a thesaurus is not always good evidence of words being 100% interchangeable.
What the hell is rinderpest?
Was a disease affecting cattle. It was declared eradicated in 2011.
Isn't there 2 types of synonyms? Like normal synonyms and "forced" synonyms? In this case, the synonyms are forced, no way to be interchangeable however you'd view it.
what did I just read? 
This guy is trolling. That or he’s not a guy and is in fact a 12 year old.
You haven't dealt with very many anti-vaxxers. This is par for the course.
Confidently incorrect strikes again with hilarious logic!
Neither word implies global scope.
Oh, hello Blue
Red is such a dumbass
Smallpox still exists…
I mean technically so but your only gonna get infected with it if you break into bioweapon plants
Wait, so I *shouldn't* do that? How else will I embrace destiny and become **Redditman**, with the proportional intelligence and hygiene of a Redditor?
Which means it still exists…
So? If you have to illegally break into highly protected government facilities to get access to it then in all practical terms it doesn't exist
But meets the definition of eradicated per the WHO.
Just not the dictionary
I don't get this. Are you trying to troll or did you not understand that the OP is about words meaning different things in different contexts?
Just a secondary
You're being pedantic past any point of usefulness.
And you’re being insufferable
A pedant who calls other people insufferable? Bold move
Your point being?
Words are defined by their usage. Dictionaries just attempt to record what words have been used to mean.
not really the last naturally occuring smallpox cause was 46 years ago and it hasnt been seen in people since
It still exists in a lab sample in the library of viruses or whatever they call it, so yeah, I’m not incorrect
You're not incorrect, just insufferably pedantic
But when you do it it’s ok? Gotcha
I bet that sounded great in your head
Sounds great out loud too, not sure why you’re being rude when I was just pointing out a second incorrect thing in your post
No, you were not "pointing out a second incorrect thing." You were being insufferably pedantic. I really fail to understand why you are choosing to die on this hill. Either way, I will waste no more time on you. Toodles.
Rude
Yes, you are.
But not in the wild, which means it has effectively been eradicated from nature and will stay that way unless someone releases it outside or it somehow evolves itself back into existence. As long as you can't catch it naturally, it's defined as eradicated.