Off My Chest

838 readers

63 users here now

RULES:

I am looking for mods!

1. The "good" part of our community means we are pro-empathy and anti-harassment. However, we don't intend to make this a "safe space" where everyone has to be a saint. Sh*t happens, and life is messy. That's why we get things off our chests.

2. Bigotry is not allowed. That includes racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religiophobia. (If you want to vent about religion, that's fine; but religion is not inherently evil.)

3. Frustrated, venting, or angry posts are still welcome.

4. Posts and comments that bait, threaten, or incite harassment are not allowed.

5. If anyone offers mental, medical, or professional advice here, please remember to take it with a grain of salt. Seek out real professionals if needed.

6. Please put NSFW behind NSFW tags.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

orphiebaby@lemmy.world

orphiebaby@lemm.ee

themeatbridge@lemmy.world

144

You are using "let alone" wrong. [CW: prescriptivism] (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by kabi@lemm.ee to c/goodoffmychest@lemmy.world

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've seen "let alone" used on Lemmy a good number of times now and, at least when I noticed it, it was always used incorrectly. It's come to a point where I still feel like I'm being gaslit even after looking up examples, just because of the sheer amount of times I've seen it used outright wrong.

What I'm talking about is people switching up the first and last part. In "X, let alone Y" Y is supposed to be the more extreme case, the one that is less likely to happen, or could only happen if X also did first.

The correct usage: "That spaghetti must have been months old. I did not even open the box, let alone eat it."

How I see it used constantly: "That spaghetti must have been months old. I did not eat it, let alone open the box."

Other wrong usage: "Nobody checks out books anymore, let alone visits the library."

Why does this bug me so much? I don't know. One reason I came up with is that it's boring. The "wrong" way the excitement always ramps down with the second sentence, so why even include it?

I am prepared to be shouted down for still somehow being incorrect about this. Do your worst. At least I'll know I keep shifting between dimensions where "let alone" is always used differently or something.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

No I do not mind that language is relative, that it evolves, etc. I don't even mind when words used in different patterns of phrasing can mean the opposite. I mind when the exact same phrase can mean two diametrically opposed things because asinine common use had misunderstood the original intent of the word so badly that we all are stuck dealing with it. If the exact same phrase can mean two completely opposite things, then it means neither. It requires the rest of the context around it to define it, meaning it is a functionally useless statement.

If "in" means in and out, it means neither. If "some" means some and none, it means neither. If "anxious" means anxious and eager, it means neither. A perfectly useful word was turned into a meaningless one. It's bad semantics.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

If context resolves the meaning, then I don't see how it's functionally useless. In one context, anxious means "worry" and in another context it means "eager". It continues to be useful because of context.

I'm really having trouble seeing the issue you're having given the light of how context resolves it. It functions within context. A word with multiple meanings resolves with context. "A bat flew by me" doesn't mean it's meaningless. It requires further context.

I don't know why you're applying normative standards to semantics. Linguistics is not a normative field. It's descriptive. This is the heart of the issue. Semantics are not definitions.