"Work Colleagues"

Ludo · 07-11-2011 9:45am

Miss Olenska wrote: »

God, you're right. That's really weird. I always specify literally and figuratively because I always consider them different.

Mind = blown

Literally of figuratively?

Snakeblood · 07-11-2011 9:48am

Miss Olenska wrote: »

This has been annoying me for ages. I have noticed people saying this more and more, and have even spotted journalists using it in articles.

Am I being a total dunce here, or is the 'work' part of that phrase not completely redundant? I mean, doesn't the work colleague intrinsically mean someone you work with? Work colleague as opposed to what? Family colleague? Friend colleague?

/end tedious rant :pac:

It means: fellow member of a profession, staff, or academic faculty; an associate.

Work narrows down what you are saying. A colleague could be a colleague in a few different things.

I brought my work colleague to meet my study colleague who I am trying to develop into a sex colleague.

Edit:
DAMMIT RANDY.

The King of Moo · 07-11-2011 9:54am

It's interesting to hear that "colleague" can be used outside of strictly work situations, I'm always open to learn new grammar stuff.

I still think lots of people who say "work colleagues" aren't aware of that though, and are being right quite by accident.

It reminds of the way people say something is "addicting," because they mishear "addictive" as "addicting."

Technically "addicting" is actually correct as you can use "to addict" as a verb to mean "to cause someone to be addicted." So you could say the internet is addicting [lots of people].
I don't think they know that though, but they're technically right anyway.

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 07-11-2011 2:06pm

'work c.unts'
sounds better and is more accurate and efficient to say

4zn76tysfajdxp · 07-11-2011 2:09pm

The King of Moo wrote: »

Jamie Redknapp on Sky Sports is my favourite for that: he's very fond of using "He's literally exploded!" and "He's literally on fire there!" and I just know at some point he must have said "They'll literally be gutted after losing that game!"

Bit of a strong punishment for losing a football match. :pac:

I think he's a top, top pundit.

HugoBradyBrown · 07-11-2011 2:14pm

The Scientician wrote: »

Literally means figuratively in that context and has done so for some time.

Work colleague does seem slightly tautologous but sure I'd guess more people say PIN number than just PIN. It's just the way language develops.

Yes, and even in Hodges Figgis the Bookstore, near the corner of Dawson and Nassau, I so often hear professional booksellers refer to the 'ISBN number'. Indeed, on occasion one will see literalists, pedants and OCD people rise to the occasion to correct them, but to most of us it seems to be a matter of no moment, compared to the Greek crisis.

Hugo Brady Brown

Tope · 07-11-2011 2:33pm

The Scientician wrote: »

Literally means figuratively in that context and has done so for some time.

No it doesn't. It's just plain wrong. Look it up in any dictionary.

Literally is pretty much the opposite of figuratively. Using it in the sense of 'figuratively' is laughable. Literally.

Yes, language evolves and changes over time, but the total misuse of a word isn't the same thing as a gradual change in meaning that is accepted into normal use.

Some things are just wrong.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 07-11-2011 2:36pm

I was in a situation last week and talking to a young girl, she told me she had rang her friend and she was on her way. Her 'friend' then arrived and i was speaking to her and she referred to the girl who rang her as a work colleague rather than a friend. I was dealing with them on a completely unrelated matter and nothing to do with their work, i dont even know where they work. I just thought it strange.

Tope · 07-11-2011 2:53pm

The Scientician wrote: »

With regard to people being stupid, if enough people are stupid linguistically then they're right, regardless of how wrong they are. I think "looser" is going to overtake "loser" in our lifetimes as the dominant spelling.

Now that's just silly - 'looser' is already a word (the opposite of 'tighter') and is pronounced differently. We have two perfectly good words with different meanings and pronunciations - just because a load of bad spellers on the internet can't tell the difference is no reason to merge them into one word and cause confusion.

stovelid · 07-11-2011 3:04pm

Miss Olenska wrote: »

/end tedious rant :pac:

Not starting them would be even better.

Frank Black · 07-11-2011 3:11pm

Tope wrote: »

Now that's just silly - 'looser' is already a word (the opposite of 'tighter') and is pronounced differently. We have two perfectly good words with different meanings and pronunciations - just because a load of bad spellers on the internet can't tell the difference is no reason to merge them into one word and cause confusion.

I'd agree with the second part of your argument, but we already have a load of words in English that are spelt that same (and in some cases pronounced differently) but have different meanings, like for example 'sow a thread' or 'sow, a female pig'. 'Lead' and 'Close' are other examples.

These words are called 'homographs' - which in an ideal world would be a word that should really be used to graphically display one's level of homosexuality.

The King of Moo · 07-11-2011 3:17pm

Tope wrote: »

Now that's just silly - 'looser' is already a word (the opposite of 'tighter') and is pronounced differently. We have two perfectly good words with different meanings and pronunciations - just because a load of bad spellers on the internet can't tell the difference is no reason to merge them into one word and cause confusion.

I may be wrong, but I don't think The Scientician is saying there'll be a deliberate effort to replace "loser" with "looser:" rather it will happen organically.

You can already see this happening. Not only is the apostrophe rarely used in an informal sense, it's now entirely absent from more "official" or at least respectable sources of everyday writing.

I think Sky News have got very lax about it, and Tesco have removed apostrophes entirely from all their signage.
Birmingham City Council in England, if I recall correctly, were planning to do likewise but I think (I hope!) they backed down.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the apostrophe all but disappear in my lifetime.

Once everyone starts making the mistake and no-one even remembers what the correct way to do it was, the mistake of today becomes tomorrow's correct way of doing it.

It's unfortunate but that's the way it goes.

The Scientician · 07-11-2011 3:22pm

Tope wrote: »

No it doesn't. It's just plain wrong. Look it up in any dictionary.

Literally is pretty much the opposite of figuratively. Using it in the sense of 'figuratively' is laughable. Literally.

Yes, language evolves and changes over time, but the total misuse of a word isn't the same thing as a gradual change in meaning that is accepted into normal use.

Some things are just wrong.

Have you actually looked it up in a dictionary? I doubt you have, because if you did you would notice that many dictionaries include the secondary meaning that you deem incorrect.

Kasabian · 07-11-2011 3:23pm

I call the people I work with demons.

They remind me I am in hell.

Snakeblood · 07-11-2011 3:27pm

The King of Moo wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I don't think The Scientician is saying there'll be a deliberate effort to replace "loser" with "looser:" rather it will happen organically.

You can already see this happening. Not only is the apostrophe rarely used in an informal sense, it's now entirely absent from more "official" or at least respectable sources of everyday writing.

I think Sky News have got very lax about it, and Tesco have removed apostrophes entirely from all their signage.
Birmingham City Council in England, if I recall correctly, were planning to do likewise but I think (I hope!) they backed down.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the apostrophe all but disappear in my lifetime.

Once everyone starts making the mistake and no-one even remembers what the correct way to do it was, the mistake of today becomes tomorrow's correct way of doing it.

It's unfortunate but that's the way it goes.

I think it's a side effect of the democratisation of writing. With texting, facebook and the internet, more people are writing for a wider audience than ever before. In olden times, people who bothered to write letters or books were generally minded to be exacting in their writing (look, I'm generalising). Now everyone can write, and has motivation to do it, regardless of skill, so corner cutting becomes standard. In a way it's better, because getting the idea across is what's important in communication, primarily. In another, you don't get awesome prose with people who use the word dude regularly.

Except for me of course.

Tope · 07-11-2011 3:50pm

The Scientician wrote: »

Have you actually looked it up in a dictionary? I doubt you have, because if you did you would notice that many dictionaries include the secondary meaning that you deem incorrect.

Yes, several.
The misuse of the word as an intensifier is usually mentioned, but any good dictionary will point out that this is not the correct usage.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
In its standard use literally means ‘in a literal sense, as opposed to a non-literal or exaggerated sense’, as for example in I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn’t expect him to take it literally.
In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects (we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread.

Please note 'unintentional humorous effects'. This is what happens when people use it in the wrong context - I laugh. (At them, not with them)

Kirby · 07-11-2011 4:09pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

People that correct other peoples usage of the English language are most likely insecure and have inferior complexs. They do it so people will think they're smart most likely brought on by a childhood experience of being called dumb all the time.

This sounds like the argument of somebody who has had their own grammar corrected in the past and because they are insecure about their own ability, they try and tear down the person correcting them....because they don't like their own weakness being highlighted.

texidub · 07-11-2011 4:13pm

I'm still waiting for the English language's first tautologous, redundant, otiose, palindrome. Until then I'm sticking to Cantonese, thank you very much.

Tope · 07-11-2011 4:42pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

People who correct other people’s usage of the English language are most likely insecure and have inferiority complexes. They do it so people will think they're smart, most likely brought on by a childhood experience of being called dumb all the time.

Aah, that's better.

Sorry, it’s like an obsessive compulsion. Both my parents were editors and lexicographers; it’s just ingrained in me. I don’t do it so people will think I’m smart – I do it because if I see something wrong, I have to fix it. Like those neat freaks who clean up other people’s mess.
Annoying habit, I admit, but certainly not a response to being called 'dumb'. That has literally never happened to me.

The Scientician · 07-11-2011 5:14pm

Tope wrote: »

Yes, several.
The misuse of the word as an intensifier is usually mentioned, but any good dictionary will point out that this is not the correct usage.

In my opinion it's not a dictionary's job to tell you the correct usage, a proper dictionary should only describe meanings and usage. But that's the difference between our POVs, you're more prescriptive, I'm more descriptive. Don't get me wrong, the usage bugs the hell out of me too, but it's so widespread as to not be worth correcting anymore, if there were ever any point to it.

Other dictionaries aren't quite as dismissive as the OED.

For example:

Usage note: Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise. The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing.

Anyway plenty of auto-antonyms (a new word for me!) exist, some of them jar, others we've accepted without realising, irregardless*of what you and I think.

*Yeah that was deliberate.

Eve_Dublin · 07-11-2011 5:18pm

Tope wrote: »

Aah, that's better.

Sorry, it’s like an obsessive compulsion. Both my parents were editors and lexicographers; it’s just ingrained in me. I don’t do it so people will think I’m smart – I do it because if I see something wrong, I have to fix it. Like those neat freaks who clean up other people’s mess.
Annoying habit, I admit, but certainly not a response to being called 'dumb'. That has literally never happened to me.

Have you ever had experience with a person genuinely suffering from obsessive compulsive behaviour? I did. Lived with a guy who'd knock on my bedroom door at midnight to inform me I put a plastic bottle cap in with the glass (by accident). He was OBSESSED with recycling and would always hover over me in the kitchen every time I recycled. I had to move out eventually. It's irritating behaviour and I ended up resenting the guy for it. Grammar Nazis need to be careful of that.

randylonghorn · 07-11-2011 5:52pm

Miss Olenska wrote: »

You and The Scientician have TOTALLY RUINED my thread with your sensible replies. :mad:

*flounces out of thread*

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

EDIT: You too, randylonghorn! :P

But if something is ruined it's ruined; do we really need the qualifier "totally"? :cool:

/ducks and runs

Tope · 07-11-2011 6:47pm

The Scientician wrote: »

In my opinion it's not a dictionary's job to tell you the correct usage, a proper dictionary should only describe meanings and usage. But that's the difference between our POVs, you're more prescriptive, I'm more descriptive.

Em, yeah, of course it is; I totally agree with you. The OED isn't being prescriptive, it's describing usage. That includes letting the reader know that this usage isn't generally considered correct - it wouldn't be doing its job very well otherwise.
If I look up an unfamiliar word, I want to know how it is spelled, its meaning and its correct use. That's the whole point of a dictionary.

If the meaning does change in reality to the extent that it becomes generally accepted, the OED will update its definition. Until then, I'll trust their version.

"Work Colleagues"

Comments