I object to the inclusion of Toxic on this list. This is not an alternate definition, so much as a metaphorical use of the normal definition, which has simply become idiomatically common.
This can even be seen in such trope names as Poisonous Friend and Toxic Friend Influence.
Hide / Show Replies
Agreed, and I've gone ahead and axed it. As I said in the edit summary, metaphors are not incorrect. An attractive person can be "hot" regardless of their actual temperature.
"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.
Main Character
If the word "epic" has degraded so much, shouldn't it be moved to one of the other pages?
Hide / Show Replies
Wereboar
'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.
Hide / Show Replies
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.
Internet Wanderer
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.
I do not think "Less Pedantic" means what they think it means.
The bit about Agnosticism is completely wrong, as Steven Dutch would tell you
. Agnosticism means that a person does not have an opinion on the existence of the divine (whatever you wish to call it), because the case for and against its existence does not justify a decision. Agnostics may feel that the case is forever unanswerable, or may be answerable in the future—but that sort of opinion is a far, far cry from what Statalyzer tried to peg Agnosticism as.
Furthermore, Atheists themselves are hardly united in what they call their more Fundamentalist numbers. I've heard people call it "Hard Atheism" and "New Atheism" in addition to "anti-theism." While it's true that Anti-Theism is a term for fundie atheists, people are not wrong for not for simply referring to the extremist Atheists as Atheists—no more than, to give context, someone would be wrong for identifying Harold Camping as a Christian, even though he's declared all churches "apostate" and holds beliefs that differ wildly from most of the denominations.
Edited by TrevMUN Hide / Show Replies
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.
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.
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.
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.