57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Klicnik@sh.itjust.works 26 points 10 months ago

Unsure of the word, the recipient found two contradictory meanings in his dictionary. He acted on the wrong one.

The native English speaker should have made a better word choice. However, the recipient of the email basically flipped a coin instead of asking for clarification. That person sucks at communication as much or more.

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

I get the feeling they didn't include what word was misinterpreted because it would be laughable.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

Best fun are contract negotiations between two languages.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

I wonder what the word was. On a related note, I often see native English speakers saying "apart" when they mean "a part". Those are not quite opposites, but are pretty different. "Apart" means "separated by a distance" whereas "a part" means "an element of a greater whole".

It's part of the whole "alot", "aswell" "noone" trend where people just remove the space between words. Sometimes this results in a new "word", but occasionally the new "word" already exists and already has its own definition.

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago

The fun part is that the word is an abstract concept inside your head, not in the text. They're removing those spaces from "a lot", "as well", "no one" etc. because they're already functionally words for those speakers.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

I like this reply alot.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I think it's the opposite. That for a lot of people, words don't really exist in any other way than as sounds.

[-] lvxferre@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

That could work too. In both cases you get the word being formed in the spoken language, and then interfering on the spelling only afterwards. The difference is if defining the word syntactically (like I did) or phonologically (like your reasoning leads to).

[Kind of off-topic trivia, but for funzies] I've seen similar phenomena in other languages, like:

  • Italian - "per questo" (thus, therefore; lit. "for this") vs. *perquesto
  • Portuguese - "por que" (why; lit. "for what") vs. "porque" (because)

Both of our explanations would work fine for those two too, mind you; they both sound like unitary words and behave as such. (e.g. they repel syntactical intrusion).

[-] Klicnik@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago

My guess is the word was biweekly, bimonthly, or biannually. If they agreed to pay bimonthly, there's a big difference between twice a month and once every two months.

this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
57 points (75.2% liked)

BecomeMe

767 readers
1 users here now

Social Experiment. Become Me. What I see, you see.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS