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"?

It already is. Sorry.

And sorry again, I just happened upon this professional website.

We have this sort of thing in the English language all the time.

Flammable = easily set on fire
Inflammable = easily set on fire.

If these examples can both mean the same thing, then perhaps a single word could be used to mean the opposite of itself.

@RescueMeFromThisSilliness , flammable came into use, I believe, because people were interpreting the 'in' as meaning 'not'.

We generally have this sort of thing when people make mistakes, as in your example. Apparently inflammable was wrongly taken to mean non-flammable. The back-formation of flammable was deliberate in order to address this. @Pedant5corner explains above. However, using factoid instead of trivia was a mistake with no useful purpose. We have lost nuance and specificity as a result.

I agree with you there.

Going back to 'factoid', the only time I've ever really heard it used was by Steve Wright on his Radio 2 show.

Yes, I believe it was his profession that perpetuated the mistake. What they thought were factoids were, in fact, trivia. Or, if they wanted a special word, factlets.

I think it was poor coinage tbh, unnecessary and destined to be misunderstood. Attaching
-oid to a word doesn’t typically make a new word with an implied meaning opposite to that of the original word, as it does in this case (true vs made up).

Attaching -oid to a word doesn’t typically make a new word with an implied meaning opposite to that of the original word ...
But that's pretty much the very definition of attaching '-oid' to a word.
"-oid: word-forming element meaning "like, like that of, thing like a ," from Latinized form of Greek -oeidēs (three syllables), from eidos "form," related to idein "to see," eidenai "to know;" literally "to see" (from PIE weid-es-, from root weid- "to see"). The -o- is connective or a stem vowel from the previous element. Often implying an incomplete or imperfect resemblance to the thing indicated."

The meaning is not precisely 'opposite' in essence. More that a factoid resembles a fact, in that it is (intended to be) accepted as true while not being true. It is not necessarily the opposite of a particular fact. Androids are not the opposite of humans. They are like them, but are not human. A spheroid is not the opposite of a sphere. It is like one, but is not one.

Yes, I know what oid means, that’s the reason for my objection.

A factoid (original coinage) is untrue, made-up. A fact is not, very much not. That is the essence of the difference between them. So a factoid is not very like a fact at all.
It’s quite different imho.

Rubbish, lies, disinformation, ‘fake news’ are all much clearer in meaning.

But that's true of the mistaken meaning of factoid too. Trivia, arcana, factlets (or their singulars) are clear in meaning. There was no need to misappropriate an additional word.

I think the '-oid' originally was to capture untruths that nevertheless seem factual, by the authority or ubiquitousness with which they are presented. Hence their similarity of, if you like, appearance with the way facts are presented. This is a useful nuance of meaning.

But that's true of the mistaken meaning of factoid too. Trivia, arcana, factlets (or their singulars) are clear in meaning. There was no need to misappropriate an additional word.

Was it misappropriation though? Or just confusion? Also, I’d never heard of factlets until this thread and I think arcana doesn’t have quite the same meaning.

I think the '-oid' originally was to capture untruths that nevertheless seem factual, by the authority or ubiquitousness with which they are presented. Hence their similarity of, if you like, appearance with the way facts are presented. This is a useful nuance of meaning
I do accept that they can be presented in the same way, that is true. Something like ‘fake news’ is still much clearer imho. Coined 1890 too which I didn’t realise!

That's really interesting, that 'fake news' is so old. I doubt most of us need forty words for snow, though these days we need 'factoid', 'fake news' and many others for the burgeoning varieties of misinformation.

If those DJs had used the right word, arcana or factlet would have become as familiar as factoid is today. They just popularised the wrong word.

Popular usage does change the meaning of words and some of the changes have been pissing me off for 50 years! Notably, strident. It means squeaky. 'Stridor' is wheezy breathing.

You never hear strident being used correctly; it's taken to mean booming, loud, domineering. Interestingly (to me, hah), the misconception arose from a newspaper report of a feminist demo. The journalist called the women's voices strident as a sneering put-down; readers understood him to be saying they were loud and insistent. The readers also took this as a put-down, demonstrating feminists not being the epitome of ladylike restraint, but knowing this makes me feel I have to be tolerant of the annoyingly changed meaning.

In phonetics, strident (or sibilant) sounds are /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /t͡ʃ/, and /d͡ʒ/. Sometimes /θ/ and /ð/ are also considered strident, but not sibilant.

I might just start calling horses 'rideable cows'. It might be incorrect, but apparently I can call anything anything these days and it won't be my fault when everyone starts saying they're thinking of taking the children down to the fields to look at the rideable cows, and the word 'horse' is lost to language...

If 'rideable cows' caught on, presumably it would just be language evolving. The loss of 'horse' just a footnote in history. If you had said years ago 'I'm going to start using 'of' instead of 'have' until it catches on', they'd have laughed. They're not laughing now.

Or, indeed, just writing 'discrete' for any usage of the word. After all, it's the same word, everyone knows what I MEAN, right? So when I'm having a discrete word with my friend, nobody is going to ask me what the word is, cos I'm being discrete.

Thanks to another thread I've just seen 'factette', apparently of millennial origin.

'The fact that factoid means “like a fact and not actually a fact” and [an inconsequential though true fact] should more correctly be called a factette will remain the archetypal self-referring factoid' David Bradley (2014) Science.

The quote is a bit confusing - think it should say "The fact that factoid means 'like a fact and not actually a fact', and an inconsequential though true fact should more correctly be called a factette will remain the archetypal self-referring factette"

We could also say "It's a factoid that factoid means an an inconsequential though true fact", and this sentence would remain true whichever definition you hold for 'factoid', which makes it rather uninformative as well as self-referring.

Yes! This is where I heard it too! From the Steve Wright in the Afternoon show. Must be 20 years ago...the Pointless Factoid!

Yes, your first point is quite right. That is indeed a factette, not a factoid, as it's true. Though please note the square brackets were mine, added for clarity (perhaps unnecessarily). Bradley did not include those words. His other definition was 'a neat little fact'.

Your second point is beautifully put. Sort of circular as well as self-referential.