08:33:07 AM Sep 3rd 2015
I feel like the bit on firearms (clip vs. magazine in particular) may be at the wrong end of the pedantic to less pedantic spectrum. While it's definitely incorrect to refer to a magazine as a clip, it has so thoroughly permeated the common vernacular here that correcting someone on that point would most definitely be viewed as pedantic by most, I think. The example even describes it as common to the point that even military sources will mix the two up.
12:24:37 AM Aug 18th 2015
09:33:59 AM Dec 29th 2014
"On most Animal Planet documentaries, an astonishing amount of people say that they now appreciate wildlife and the danger that wild animals can cause after getting attacked. They probably mean that they now respect wildlife after such incidents." This doesn't actually seem to fit the topic. "Appreciate" means both "to value" *and* "to be aware of". Someone can both appreciate (value) the beauty of a wild animal *and* come to appreciate (understand) the danger that wild animals represent.
11:23:48 AM Oct 13th 2013
If the word "epic" has degraded so much, shouldn't it be moved to one of the other pages?
09:18:05 AM May 5th 2013
The sex/gender bit is full of natter, but I'm not entirely sure whether it should be rewritten or moved into the "more pedantic" category. While the "sex=genetic, gender=psychological/social/cultural" distinction is a pretty universal one in discussions of trans* issues, gender identities, feminism, etc., it's much less set in stone elsewhere. And, as one of the commenters pointed out, that definition is relatively recent, while the use as synonyms is a lot older. So in some contexts, this one isn't pedantic at all, and people are actively trying to make the "new" definitions more widely accepted, but both are still in use.
04:53:38 AM Jan 13th 2013
'Irregardless' is by all means a word. It is constructed in accordance with rules of English grammar and has a definite meaning (literally 'not without regards' - negative prefix 'ir' + basic word 'regards' + negative suffix 'less'). It is redundant (double negation), is not commonly used and is considered incorrect, but it is a word. No doubts about that. The fact that the word describes something that does not exist doesn't make it a 'non-word'. People who claim that it is a non-word present a way of thinking typical for primitive peoples or small children who use words only to describe tangible (or ar least visible) objects and don't fully grasp the concept of abstract. By the way, it is not slang word. Slang is a distinctive variation of the language limited to the specific non-ethnic group (like computer lingo of the hackers, or 'fenya' of Russian mob). As far as I know, there is no coherent group that uses a word 'irregardless'. It may be a part of some idiolect, but it is not a slang word.
08:47:57 PM Dec 10th 2014
Here's a word: Zalgomistic. It means "pertaining to a twelve-foot-long worm native to Borneo, called a Zalgomist, which does not actually exist." It doesn't violate any rules of English grammar (using a legitimate -ic suffix), it has a definite meaning, and it describing something that doesn't exist (specifically, a quality that cannot be possessed because the animal it compares the subject to is fictional) is apparently a non-issue. Assuming you aren't a "primitive" person or a small child, and can grasp abstraction, I expect to hear your full agreement that this should be accepted as a valid English word.
04:12:05 PM Apr 2nd 2012
A few of the examples (especially further down the list) should probably belong in some of the other subpages, and it seems someone should poke around and move relevant things. too late in the night ATM for me to provide more info right now, but some of the examples have definatively lost it's prior meaning to most people.
06:33:56 AM Nov 8th 2011
edited by TrevMUN
edited by TrevMUN
Two separate tropers slapped this onto the Less Pedantic list before the trope page was split:
- 26th Oct '11 7:14:19 AM craftyfirestormI think it's a fairly important exampleAdded line(s) 250 (click to see context) :* The term Atheist is often used in place of Anti-theist. Atheist do not believe there is a god but have no inherent opposition to the idea; Anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism, i.e. Anti-theists believe that there is no god1st Nov '11 1:47:23 AM StatalyzerChanged line(s) 250 (click to see context) from:* The term Atheist is often used in place of Anti-theist. Atheist do not believe there is a god nor that there is definitely not one; Anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism, i.e. Anti-theists believe that there is no god. Nowadays atheist has taken the latter meaning and had its original meaning replaced by agnostic. The literal meaning of agnostic is "not gnostic", ie opposing the idea that mystic spiritual truths are knowable by humanity.
07:03:59 AM Jan 11th 2014
I'm coming a bit late to this, but I'd say that there is something to be said along the lines of, Atheist should not be taken to refer to only the most fundamentalist members. (It's not very pedantic at all to get annoyed if someone thinks you're anti-religion just because you tell them that you're an atheist). They seem to be getting in trouble (and getting pedantic) for insisting on a single alternate term to refer to that section of the population.