For me, it may be that the toilet paper roll needs to have the open end away from the wall. I don’t want to reach under the roll to take a piece! That’s ludicrous!

That or my recent addiction to correcting people when they use “less” when they should use “fewer”

  • ironhydroxide
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Historical use, vs evolving English use.

    Just like literally is now figuratively.

    • Boozilla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Oh, that makes sense. Usage creep bothers me, too. Especially the “literally” thing. I know gatekeeping is unpopular, and linguists will tut-tut you for being prescriptivist. But some language shifts are just fucking dumb and make people sound dumb.

    • hakase@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      This is literally the opposite of what happened. “To damp” was used to mean “to moisten” in the 1670s, a hundred and fifty years before “dampen” started to be used for it also in the early 1800s.

      As with many if not most of the pedants in this thread, you’re dying on a hill that’s actually just straight-up wrong.