Factoid - they’ve stolen our word

[BrickBiscuit]

You can’t have anything these days. 'Factoid' was given to us to define a falsehood that has been accepted round the world before the truth has got its boots on. But a bunch of ignorant broadcasters misused it for their factlets, trivia or arcana and the dictionaries capitulated. Just seen it used so in an OP. Does this mean I will soon be writing "you can’t of anything these days"?

@BrickBiscuit , it's a case of two nations divided by a common language.

fac·toid
[ˈfaktɔɪd]
noun
an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact:
"he addresses the facts and factoids which have buttressed the film's legend"
NORTH AMERICAN ENGLISH
a brief or trivial item of news or information:
"how does the brain retain factoids that you remember from a history test at school?"

Does this mean I will soon be writing "you can’t of anything these days"?
Don't be silly.

it's a case of two nations divided by a common language.

But both definitions are North American in origin (Mailer and CNN etc), and transatlantic in usage (eg Steve Wright in UK). I think it appears much the same on both sides.

Would you have called someone silly for saying, not so very long ago, "‘should of’ will soon be in the dictionary"?

Would you have called someone silly for saying, not so very long ago, "‘should of’ will soon be in the dictionary"?
No, because it is highly likely that it will be.

It is already. Several list it, on grounds of usage. However, fortunately they designate it ‘uneducated’, ‘incorrect’, ‘always wrong’ or ‘misspelled’.

If it's ok to coin a new word, as Norman Mailer did, how is it not ok to coin a new usage of it? The later usage has way more traction in any case, which arguably gives it more legitimacy than one man's invention.

The word meant ‘untrue’ - the new usage means ‘true’. How is that helpful? It literally makes me mad when words are used incorrectly like that. They should of left the word alone. Irregardless of whether there was already a word for it (arcana, trivia), another was invented that’s better: 'factlet’. We need less of these wrongly-used words. Though really it doesn’t effect me; I could care less.

tldr: its not OK to use words wrong.

But one man can't invent a word and dictate how it catches on in society. The later use was the one that caught on. Language is a mass creation, not the dictat of professional writers.

The mass creation of language has given us “should of”. We should be extremely wary of it.

It also gave us "should have".

But that’s pointless. ‘Should have’ arose to fulfil the function that no other construction has. It does the job of ‘should have’. “Should of’ is simply an uneducated error. Mass creation of language is promulgating the error.

Well, yeah, of course mass language use often involves mass error, but my point is that it is still the mass practices of a linguistic community, rather than Norman Mailer, that determine the meaning of a word.

Whether or not a popular practice constitutes an error depends on a range of things. For example, is there an established mass practice, still current, that it contradicts? Does it obfuscate or clarify? And probably loads of other criteria. Sometimes it just depends on which practices win out in the end, which is why it isn't incorrect of us not to speak Middle English.

I’m not arguing with that. I’m complaining about it.

What OP? Factoid has been used in UK for well over a decade. I've heard it on R2 when I used to do a primary school run, so at least 10 years ago.

Language evolves. Suzy Dent was on Woman's Hour discussing this not long ago. If the English got in a tizz every time Americanisms misappropriated words we'd never get anything done!

My point is, ‘factoid’ has lost its original meaning through promulgating this error. Worse still, there is no alternative word for that. It was unique. As Susie Dent says:

"None of these changes mean we should no longer care. The opposite, in fact, for having bugbears means we are passionate about our words and wish to protect their beauty and clarity. What’s more, when we mangle them, we run the risk of distracting our audience, and losing our meaning in the process."

I don’t think I’ve ever been aware of ‘factoid’ meaning anything other than a ‘factlet’ and have never heard the latter.
I’m a pretty well educated 64yo. 🤷‍♀️
If it was originally intended to mean something untrue, it was a very poor coining.

On the other hand ‘meme’ was an excellent term which has been degraded into meaning ‘gif or picture with a silly caption’.

On the contrary, ‘factoid' was a clear, concise and apt coining. At a similar age, I remember it well. I am also long familiar with ‘factlet’.

Factoid (fact = something true; -oid = resembling but not the same) precisely implies ‘untrue’. Androids are like but not human. Asteroids are like but not stars. Factoids (used properly) are like but not facts.

The suffix ‘-oid’ does not make sense when used to mean ‘minor’ (as in the usage of factlet) instead of ‘fake’ (as in the original usage).

tldr: its not OK to use words wrong.
Indeed.

Susie Dent.

Very good. 😂

Plus I've now learned 'factlet' which just sounds darling!

Factoid (fact = something true; -oid = resembling but not the same) precisely implies ‘untrue’

Is precisely implying something even possible?

I do see where you’re coming from OP, but adding -oid to a word to make a new word doesn’t usually mean the two words now have opposite meanings.

‘Resembling a fact’ could equally well be applied to something so trivial it’s hardly seen as deserving the title of ‘fact’.
That’s how I’ve always understood the term for what it’s worth. I didn’t know of the other meaning until this thread.

Is precisely implying something even possible? Yes. It is the conclusion being implied that is precise, not the degree of implication.

‘Resembling a fact’ could equally well be applied to something so trivial it’s hardly seen as deserving the title of ‘fact’. Something that is true, no matter how trivial, deserves the title of fact. Triviality is a degree of importance, not accuracy.

In 'Strong Message Here' on BBC Radio 4 this morning: "things are becoming facts because enough people have said it" ... "an inaccuracy that reaches a critical mass merits being talked about." This is precisely what 'factoid' was supposed to mean.

Those princes were never murdered in the tower.

People just kept saying it.

(Gone to lunch.)

Perhaps more a conspiracy theory than a factoid? Depends how much credence was given at the time.

Oh Christ. Please no.