I'm a fan of David Mitchell, but the "'disinterested' doesn't mean 'not interested'" complaint is an error - albeit a common one enjoyed by many well-intentioned pedants.
"Disinterested" can be used synonymously in place of "uninterested" (though the reverse is not necessarily true - one definition of "disinterested" IS "impartial/objective"). Most dictionaries define both words as "not interested".
Common use long ago added the secondary meaning, "not interested", to the word "disinterested".
@Canaderek According to etymonline, uninterested originally meant "impartial" and disinterested "indifferent" until the two words switched meanings in the 1600s. Furthermore: "As things now stand, disinterested means "free from personal bias," while uninterested means "caring nothing for the matter in question."
I think it's a worthwhile distinction, and I learned something today.
Websters Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, Random House Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary and the World Dictionary each lists "not interested" as one of the definitions of "disinterested".
A few of the above DO note that this secondary meaning is deeply upsetting to certain people.
Dictionaries supporting my assertion aside, common usage dictates the meaning of a word. That's how language works.
@Canaderek Well yeah, both words can mean "indifferent." I never contradicted this.
Maybe I could have phrased it better, but I only meant to question which meaning of 'disinterested' came first. Your point is that there was a time when disinterested meant "impartial," but common parlance added "not interested" to the definition, so now that's what it means. I'm saying that it might have been the other way around -- that "not interested" is the meaning that's been grandfathered in.
@mangusrah Sorry Manny. I'd misunderstood what you had meant by
"Furthermore: "As things now stand, disinterested means "free from personal bias," while uninterested means "caring nothing for the matter in question."" followed by, "I think it's a worthwhile distinction".
I think we're on the same page now. You'd meant "Furthermore (followed by a quote from the site defining each word as exclusively having one meaning or the other)" in a sense with which I'm unfamiliar (but I'm about to look up)
@Canaderek I find it telling that, of the dictionaries you listed, any dictionary printed by a company of British heritage makes note of the fact that - disinterested to mean 'not interested' is considered incorrect.
I would also like to point out that use of the word disinterested to mean 'free from bias or partiality' is more common than its use to mean 'not interested', well in the English speaking world free from American-English influence anyway.
@subgay So, the vast majority of the English-speaking world considers either definition acceptable, but a few dictionaries make note of the fact that many pedants grumpily insist that only one definition is correct? I agree.
The OED (Oxford English Dictionary), irrefutably the most highly-respected compendium of words and their meanings in the BRITISH English speaking world:
Disinterested:
1: Without interest or concern; not interested, unconcerned.
Nowhere are the battle lines more deeply drawn in usage questions than over the difference between disinterested and uninterested. According to traditional guidelines, disinterested should never be used to mean ‘not interested’ (i.e. it is not a synonym for uninterested) but only to mean ‘impartial’, as in the judgements of disinterested outsiders are likely to be more useful.
@subgay Ironically, the earliest recorded sense of disinterested is for the disputed sense. Today, the ‘incorrect’ use of disinterested is widespread: around a quarter of citations in the Oxford English Corpus for disinterested are for this sense.
@subgay You're supporting my argument that the word can have either meaning. Your complaint is that in my edition, the wording is insignificantly different. The two disparate meanings are as I presented them.
Had you forgotten which position you'd been taken?
@Canaderek How you got " the vast majority of the English-speaking world considers either definition acceptable" from my comment I will never know, I clearly said one definition was MORE commonly used than the other. That alone should indicate that LESS people consider the dual meaning to be correct than those that consider it correct.
@subgay You'd suggested that British English dictionaries have it, er, right, while "American-English" do not.
By "vast majority", I'd meant that most all English speakers are not British.
And, some British people use the word either or both ways (see Rob Brydon in above video).
I understand why some claim to speak the "true" English, and why it makes such people feel clever. However, if most speakers use a word in a certain way, that's what the word means. That's how language works.
@Canaderek Furthermore, "a few dictionaries" No, the majority of dictionaries make this note. They could print two copies of their dictionaries, 1 for the US market and 1 for everyone else but money is money and making a note is cheaper by far.
So, please remember that just because a word is "commonly" used incorrectly that does not validate its use. Millions, no hundreds of millions of kids use Gay to mean anything generally bad, it still means merry, not bad.
"Gay" is very often used to mean "homosexual". This has been the case for many decades. All English language dictionaries will include this definition of gay. Some homophobic people use the word as a generic negative, because they're homophobic
Try to find Stephen Fry's English Delight on audio disc or computer file. I think you'd enjoy it very much and most likely drop the pseudo-intellectual pendantry
Sorry for the acerbic tone (I'm a smart-ass myself, but I fear you're only half-way there).
Not an amusing point, but grammatically an absolute belter.
CiaranLiam 2 weeks ago
Jon Richardson is not wearing a cardigan... dear lord.
PinUpPoetProductions 2 weeks ago 2
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
MsDDiddy 1 month ago
"champion"....! :D
Jazperanza 3 months ago 11
Jon and David should be best friends.
Thanks for the upload, Haceid!
Mayna00 4 months ago 10
I'm a fan of David Mitchell, but the "'disinterested' doesn't mean 'not interested'" complaint is an error - albeit a common one enjoyed by many well-intentioned pedants.
"Disinterested" can be used synonymously in place of "uninterested" (though the reverse is not necessarily true - one definition of "disinterested" IS "impartial/objective"). Most dictionaries define both words as "not interested".
Common use long ago added the secondary meaning, "not interested", to the word "disinterested".
Canaderek 4 months ago
@Canaderek According to etymonline, uninterested originally meant "impartial" and disinterested "indifferent" until the two words switched meanings in the 1600s. Furthermore: "As things now stand, disinterested means "free from personal bias," while uninterested means "caring nothing for the matter in question."
I think it's a worthwhile distinction, and I learned something today.
mangusrah 4 months ago
@mangusrah Neat. I'd never heard of Etymonline.
Websters Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, Random House Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary and the World Dictionary each lists "not interested" as one of the definitions of "disinterested".
A few of the above DO note that this secondary meaning is deeply upsetting to certain people.
Dictionaries supporting my assertion aside, common usage dictates the meaning of a word. That's how language works.
Canaderek 4 months ago
@Canaderek Well yeah, both words can mean "indifferent." I never contradicted this.
Maybe I could have phrased it better, but I only meant to question which meaning of 'disinterested' came first. Your point is that there was a time when disinterested meant "impartial," but common parlance added "not interested" to the definition, so now that's what it means. I'm saying that it might have been the other way around -- that "not interested" is the meaning that's been grandfathered in.
mangusrah 4 months ago
@mangusrah Sorry Manny. I'd misunderstood what you had meant by
"Furthermore: "As things now stand, disinterested means "free from personal bias," while uninterested means "caring nothing for the matter in question."" followed by, "I think it's a worthwhile distinction".
I think we're on the same page now. You'd meant "Furthermore (followed by a quote from the site defining each word as exclusively having one meaning or the other)" in a sense with which I'm unfamiliar (but I'm about to look up)
Canaderek 4 months ago
@Canaderek I find it telling that, of the dictionaries you listed, any dictionary printed by a company of British heritage makes note of the fact that - disinterested to mean 'not interested' is considered incorrect.
I would also like to point out that use of the word disinterested to mean 'free from bias or partiality' is more common than its use to mean 'not interested', well in the English speaking world free from American-English influence anyway.
subgay 3 months ago
@subgay So, the vast majority of the English-speaking world considers either definition acceptable, but a few dictionaries make note of the fact that many pedants grumpily insist that only one definition is correct? I agree.
The OED (Oxford English Dictionary), irrefutably the most highly-respected compendium of words and their meanings in the BRITISH English speaking world:
Disinterested:
1: Without interest or concern; not interested, unconcerned.
2. Not influenced by interest; impartial
Canaderek 3 months ago
@Canaderek If your going to quote a dictionary you should try to be up to date.
adjective
1 not influenced by considerations of personal advantage:
a banker is under an obligation to give disinterested advice
2 having or feeling no interest in something; uninterested:
her father was so disinterested in her progress that he only visited the school once
subgay 3 months ago
@subgay Usage
Nowhere are the battle lines more deeply drawn in usage questions than over the difference between disinterested and uninterested. According to traditional guidelines, disinterested should never be used to mean ‘not interested’ (i.e. it is not a synonym for uninterested) but only to mean ‘impartial’, as in the judgements of disinterested outsiders are likely to be more useful.
subgay 3 months ago
@subgay Ironically, the earliest recorded sense of disinterested is for the disputed sense. Today, the ‘incorrect’ use of disinterested is widespread: around a quarter of citations in the Oxford English Corpus for disinterested are for this sense.
subgay 3 months ago
@subgay You're supporting my argument that the word can have either meaning. Your complaint is that in my edition, the wording is insignificantly different. The two disparate meanings are as I presented them.
Had you forgotten which position you'd been taken?
Canaderek 3 months ago
@Canaderek How you got " the vast majority of the English-speaking world considers either definition acceptable" from my comment I will never know, I clearly said one definition was MORE commonly used than the other. That alone should indicate that LESS people consider the dual meaning to be correct than those that consider it correct.
subgay 3 months ago
@subgay You'd suggested that British English dictionaries have it, er, right, while "American-English" do not.
By "vast majority", I'd meant that most all English speakers are not British.
And, some British people use the word either or both ways (see Rob Brydon in above video).
I understand why some claim to speak the "true" English, and why it makes such people feel clever. However, if most speakers use a word in a certain way, that's what the word means. That's how language works.
Canaderek 3 months ago
@Canaderek Furthermore, "a few dictionaries" No, the majority of dictionaries make this note. They could print two copies of their dictionaries, 1 for the US market and 1 for everyone else but money is money and making a note is cheaper by far.
So, please remember that just because a word is "commonly" used incorrectly that does not validate its use. Millions, no hundreds of millions of kids use Gay to mean anything generally bad, it still means merry, not bad.
subgay 3 months ago
@subgay And while I accept that language evolves with time, you can't confuse going backwards with going forwards.
subgay 3 months ago
"Gay" is very often used to mean "homosexual". This has been the case for many decades. All English language dictionaries will include this definition of gay. Some homophobic people use the word as a generic negative, because they're homophobic
Try to find Stephen Fry's English Delight on audio disc or computer file. I think you'd enjoy it very much and most likely drop the pseudo-intellectual pendantry
Sorry for the acerbic tone (I'm a smart-ass myself, but I fear you're only half-way there).
Canaderek 3 months ago