this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
44 points (94.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26734 readers
1453 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics.


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I find myself often winging it with "themself/themselves" and it seems to be like themselves is always colloquially correct when there are multiple preceding nouns you're referring to...

Otherwise if there's only one antecedent or whatever, its themself

Be gentle haha

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Might have been an idea to factoid-check that claim in a dictionary before posting because it's not really correct.

Factoid (noun)

(1) an insignificant or trivial fact.

(2) something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

Factoids are to facts what humanoids are to humans. It does not mean the "exact opposite" at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

It's the original meaning of the word, coined by Norman Mailer in 1973.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The second definition in your quote confirms that factoid can mean a widely-accepted false fact.

(2) something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

From here:

On occasion, a writer will coin a fine neologism that spreads quickly but then changes meaning. “Factoid” was a term created by Norman Mailer in 1973 for a piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it’s not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print. Mailer wrote in Marilyn, “Factoids…that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority.” Of late, factoid has come to mean a small or trivial fact that makes it a contronym (also called a Janus word) in that it means both one thing and its opposite, such as “cleve” (to cling or to split), “sanction” (to permit or to punish) or “citation” (commendation or a summons to appear in court). So factoid has become a victim of novelist C.S. Lewis’s term “verbicide,” the willful distortion or deprecation of a word’s original meaning.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The obvious rejoinder: if Norman Mailer wanted his neologism to keep the meaning he intended for it, he should have been more careful about etymology. The "oid" suffix makes the new definition more logical than his own one.

Counter-example: "homophobe", which is illogical but has stuck anyway because it's succinct.

Interesting points otherwise.