Securing Electricity Meter Cupboard

[ban-all-sheds]

Sorry - I'm obviously not explaining it properly - I really need to find an example.

What happens is I type a word, and get one letter wrong because of an adjacent key miss-hit.

The checker then presents a list of alternatives, not one of which is the correct word. It seems to be looking for possibilities without looking at those which arise when trying adjacent key replacements.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course, there are a whole pile of similar adjectives/adverbs for which much common usage has evolved well away from what the words actually mean/meant ... terrible, horrible, amazing, fantastic etc. etc. etc. (and all the corresponding adverbs).

And now also "literally".

Your examples are pretty much all those of creeping hyperbole, but they've now added authoritative support for a meaning which is the opposite of what it used to mean, therefore rendering the word useless.

 

[JohnW2]

What happens is I type a word, and get one letter wrong because of an adjacent key miss-hit. ... The checker then presents a list of alternatives, not one of which is the correct word. It seems to be looking for possibilities without looking at those which arise when trying adjacent key replacements.

Fair enough, and I can't remember whether or not I have experienced that, but it's not something I've so far seen happening in my recent experiments.

... as I just wrote, in my experiments to date it seems that almost any single-character error will result in the correct word being suggested (commonly only the correct word) (sometimes no suggestions at all), regardless of whether the error was an 'adjacent key' or 'keys miles apart' one.

I'll continue the experiments, not the least to see if I can reproduce what you are describing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

incredibly commonplace

I would say it doesn't mean 'very' as such - although people may think it does.

As I see it it still means incredibly commonplace; i.e. commonplace despite people's expectations that it would/should not be the case.


That people use literally wrongly has become incredibly commonplace.

 

[JohnW2]

As I see it it still means incredibly commonplace; i.e. commonplace despite people's expectations that it would/should not be the case.

I would say that it is, strictly, somewhat of an oxymoron - if some is recognised as "commonplace", that can hardly be "incredible" (unless one believe that it is not true that it is commonplace)>

The meaning you suggest would, I think, be more accurately expressed as "unexpectedly commonplace", or something like that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I would say it doesn't mean 'very' as such - although people may think it does.

I think that a high proportion of people do - and I am certainly no exception. If I say that something is "incredibly" small/ large/ heavy/ light/ bright/ whatever, I simply mean ('a strong') "very" (maybe "very very"!), without any implication that I am surprised by, or disbelieving of, the statement.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I would say that it is, strictly, somewhat of an oxymoron - if some is recognised as "commonplace", that can hardly be "incredible" (unless one believe that it is not true that it is commonplace)>

Of course it can.
Commonplace is a relation to its number. That is nothing to do with whether it is credible or not.

You may believe it absolutely but find it unbelievable that it did happen.

It is incredible that tattoos have become so commonplace; therefore tattoos are incredibly commonplace.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I might qualify that by saying that perhaps believable is not an exact synonym; it is rather binary, whereas credible is more related to understanding.

It is incredible that so many believe in religion means that I accept that a lot do but find it incredible.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course it can. Commonplace is a relation to its number. That is nothing to do with whether it is credible or not.

Eh? I see no reason why a (the) number cannot be "incredible" (not believable). If I suggested that 30 million people in the UK had naturally 'red' hair, would you not regard that as "incredible" (true/original meaning - i.e. 'impossible to believe')?

Similarly, it is surely only strictly true to say that the statement "X is commonplace" is "incredible" if it is 'impossible to believe' (or, at least, 'difficult to believe') that X actually is commonplace?

It is incredible that tattoos have become so commonplace; therefore tattoos are incredibly commonplace.

Again, it is only incredible (proper meaning) that tattoos have become commonplace if it is "impossible (or, at least difficult) to believe" that they have become commonplace.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I might qualify that by saying that perhaps believable is not an exact synonym; it is rather binary, whereas credible is more related to understanding.

I'm not so sure about that. Most dictionaries give the ('proper') meaning of "incredible as "impossible to believe" and/or "difficult to believe".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok. If credible and believable are in all instances interchangeable then I am wrong.

However, what then is the word for what I have been saying?

That is I believe (accept) that it is true but cannot but cannot {word} it has happened.

 

[JohnW2]

Ok. If credible and believable are in all instances interchangeable then I am wrong.

As always, one has to decide who/what is the determinant of 'right'/'wrong'. All I can say is that your previous view seems 'different from' the definitions in most (maybe all) dictionaries. However, given that you often express the view that dictionaries are not necessarily 'right', I'm not sure what that means

However, what then is the word for what I have been saying? ... That is I believe (accept) that it is true but cannot but cannot {word} it has happened.

"Amazed" or "Astonished" might do the job. However, I'm not sure that there is any single word that could be inserted into that sentence. I imagine that "... but I am surprised/amazed/astonished that it has happened..." would probably often do the trick.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm not sure what that means

It means exactly what I wrote.

So, if someone tells one that something astonishing has happened (and it's true) and one retorts "That's incredible" then one is always wrong - Yes?

 

[JohnW2]

It means exactly what I wrote.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough....

.... My point was that, since you believe that dictionaries are not necessarily 'right' (which is 'exactly what you have written'), I am "not sure what it means" (in terms of who is 'right' and who is 'wrong') that there is a difference between the dictionaries' definitions of "incredible" and your (previous) view of the meaning of the word.

So, if someone tells one that something astonishing has happened (and it's true) and one retorts "That's incredible" then one is always wrong - Yes?

Not necessarily 'always wrong'. That retort would not be 'wrong' if its intent were to suggest that the person saying it found it "difficult or impossible to believe" that the event/whatever really had happened. Even if the 'someone' was asserting that the statement was true, that does not stop someone else saying that they nevertheless found it "difficult/impossible to believe" that it really was true.

However, if the second person somehow knew for certain that the event (no matter how 'astonishing') really had happened, then yes (in terms of 'proper meaning'), to describe it as "incredible" would, IMO, always be wrong.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

.... My point was that, since you believe that dictionaries are not necessarily 'right' (which is 'exactly what you have written'), I am "not sure what it means" (in terms of who is 'right' and who is 'wrong') that there is a difference between the dictionaries' definitions of "incredible" and your (previous) view of the meaning of the word.

I just meant that if you were right about credible and believable being exactly the same then I am wrong.

I accept what you say in the rest of that post.


However, I'm still trying to explain, with an alternative definition, of how "I can't believe (it's incredible) you just said that" is something better than an 'informal' (i.e. wrong) meaning and so "incredibly commonplace" would be acceptable and not just mean 'very'..
Is "It's incredible that such a thing has happened" merely totally oxymoronic and wrong?

What about definition 2? It doesn't say informal.