Disinterested/ uninterested

[springchickennolonger]

Since when do they mean the same thing? I thought "disinterested" meant "objective" which is NOT the same thing as "uninterested" ie "lacking interest". I'm noticing "disinterested" being used everywhere including by Auntie Beeb.

Am I going bonkers? Is my inner pedant waaay out of control?

I think the usage as a synonym of uninterested is now so ubiquitous that it's become generally accepted as "correct".

Obviously I say "correct" because it's absolutely not correct.

Disinterested can be a synonym for uninterested. It's the second and less used meaning but it's correct.

Same as literally is a synonym for figuratively according to the OED. This is a relatively new development though.

www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/disinterested-or-uninterested

They are not synonyms. Disinterested means being unaffected by something. Eg an American could be disinterested in the EU elections.

Uninterested means that you find something boring.

So I'm right then, yes? Not synonymous, but increasingly accepted as such?

Oh I know they shouldn't be synonymous but the alternative meaning has been listed for disinterested for a long time, certainly when I did my linguistics degree 674 years ago it was listed as an example of usage affecting definition. As the link above suggests, it was the 'incorrect' use recorded first.

In practice, I only ever use disinterested to mean unbiased, same as my refusal to use literally when I mean figuratively, but the op asked 'since when' and I was pointing out that it is no longer categorically incorrect.

It is a shame.

oh really it is one thing I am still really pedantic about. damn.

Yes only a few of us are using disinterested correctly but I think we need to keep doing it

I was fuming (well not really...) when DS2 doing SATS practice came home with a paper asking him to use "hopefully" in the context of "I hope" which is not what it means at all, it's an adverb fgs!! That's another thread tho...

I do wonder how far they might go with this definition vs usage thing. It is common with adjectives, less so with nouns. I am awaiting the news of "I was sat/stood" being acceptable. With sadness. The verbs are the last bastion of pedantry. My class debated 'text' as a verb last week.

Can you explain this definition v usage conflict? Surely, all definitions are derived from usage? Have you seen what "nice" used to mean: www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice

By the way, clary, do you object to my using "surely" above as an adverb to modify a phrase not a verb? Because, you can do the same with "hopefully": it's not wrong to place it at the start of a sentence to mean "it is hoped that" - read a proper linguist on the topic: chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/04/23/hopefully-foolishness/

Oh OK. I'm still going to use it only as in "The boy asked hopefully: 'Can I have an ice cream?'"

(sorry)

I am not sure that a former American academic now working in Scotland has much to teach us about the use of English - especially as his article was more explosion than explanation of his point of view. Simply because other adverbs can be used both as modal and manner adjuncts does not mean that all adverbs can and should be so used. This seems to me to be yet another occasion of people trying to defend sloppiness as language evolution or usage - to some extent they may be the same thing but the whole point of this corner is that we can fulminate about where we believe the line between them lies without insults such as "read a proper linguist". DadDadDad do you support or excuse the use of textspeak in other forms of communication? Do you support or excuse the use of "of" in place of "have"? How, if you allow "infer" and "imply" to be used interchangeably do you find what it truly meant? Similarly if you use "anticipate" when you mean "expect" what do you use when you really mean that you have anticipated something or about to do so? In other words where, for you, does sloppy English cease to be justified by usage or do you not recognize that there is such a thing as sloppy English?

PS What does an improper linguist get up to in his spare time?

If saying "proper linguist" caused offence, I'm generally sorry - I only meant it in the sense of someone who does it professionally, and so has the benefit of spending a lot of time looking at this rigorously. The contrast was to those of us who are amateur linguists (not meant derogatively), who love language and enjoy discussing it, but don't have any qualifications that might lend some authority to our views.

I think actually Professor Pullum is Scottish (so native British English speaker) who works as an American academic. He is one of the authors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. I know he has a bit of a confrontational style, but I thought that link gave some genuine insight.

I just take issue when people impute laziness or sloppiness to others who use a word differently to how they would use it. If someone starts a sentence with "Hopefully" I don't really see it as sloppy, as it's hard to think of a case where the listener is going to be confused about what they mean in context.

But I agree it is possible for people to be sloppy in their use of language, making the reader/listener work harder to understand their meaning.

Take "anticipate" as an example. I'd love to live in a logical world where "expect" means "think something is going to happen (but not take action to prepare)" and "anticipate" means "think something is going to happen (and so take action to prepare)".

But then I have to pay attention to the quote below which sounds plausible even if I've not fact-checked it (from the web), and realise I would be the sloppy one if I used "anticipate" in the sense above without giving my reader some clues. So, to answer your question, we have the evil villain say "I anticipated your feeble plan and my minions are already in position to capture your friends", (nod to Return of the Jedi there), so we know exactly what sense of "anticipate" is being used.

The quote: (dictionary.reference.com)
Despite claims that anticipate should only be used to mean to perform (an action) or respond to (a question, etc.) in advance or to forestall, it has been used widely since the 18th century as a synonym for expect, often with an implication of pleasure: We anticipate a large turnout at the next meeting. This use is standard in all types of speech and writing.

I am not sure that a former American academic now working in Scotland has much to teach us about the use of English

Well, English is spoken in both those countries. For what it's worth, though, Pullam grew up and was educated in England.