This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can't rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage.
"Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can't be gruntled.
> I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way.
> I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it, since I was travelling cognito. Beknownst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do.
etc.
- Jack Winter
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kempt
Google Books Ngram Viewer for kempt vs unkempt: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=kempt%2C+unkem...
I feel like you're being sent a strong signal about what "correct" means re usage but refusing to heed it.
Dictionaries aren't descriptivist because of an idealogical commitment or whatever; a strictly prescriptivist stance is simply not very useful for achieving the goals that a dictionary has.
Apparently the dictionary's goals are not the same as my goals. Sure, I want to know about incorrect usages; but I also want to know that those usages are incorrect.
Say that an English speaker speaks a sentence, and an English listener understands it. If they both agree that it was an English sentence -- including no jargon -- and they both agree on the meaning of the sentence, then that's correct English. If the two individuals have also never met before, then it's certainly correct English.
That's what "defined by usage" means. English does not have a language regulator or language academy.
Relics that unfortunately maintain significant influence in at least France and Germany.
When I grew up and was just learning to write, orthography was "revamped" by literal committee, in some cases even going so far as deriving a new spelling via false etymologies.
It wasn't really a big deal for me practically, but it just seems bizarre.
English does have lexicographers, though. I should be able to turn to a dictionary to find out what "literally" means, and it's regrettable that that inquiry will tell me the word has two directly-opposed meanings, without noting that one of them is wrong.
"Literally" is allowed to have a valid and true definition of "figuratively" because exaggeration and hyperbole are used for rhetoric and expression. That's a vital and popular way language is used, and in the case of "literally" it is so commonly encountered that it worth noting in descriptive texts that it's common.
According to TFA, "nonplussed" is from Latin "non plus" (no more), and it doesn't seem to have ever had that meaning in English. So I don't really care about "nonplussed". I do care about "literally" (by the letter), and the fact that lexicographers treat its usage to mean "figuratively" as perfectly legitimate. At least, the dictionaries should point out that the version I consider wrong is slang.
The result is that the word "literally" can't now be used in precise discourse, and you have to find some awkward circumlocution. This kind of abuse makes the language less expressive, and is cause for regret.
Why can't the English learn to speak?
~ Prof. Henry Higgins
I do think this is what the dictionary should say. It describes actual usage, including disagreements about it.
By the way, I do think there is a place for linguistic prescriptions, it's just in style guides rather than dictionaries. E.g., fine for the Economist to decide "literally" will only be used in its literal sense in their pages.
Why? It's a perfectly cromulent word: https://comb.io/tVAKjq
First, unless you are dangling from a piece of jewelry, “pedants”, not “pendants”.
Second, stop worrying about “correct” usage and worry about clear and effective communication. It’s a lot less useful and convincing to argue that a usage is wrong by some arbitrary standard than to argue, e.g., that it promotes confusion where an alternative expression would be more clear to the target audience. Not only is it a more useful approach, it also lets you get benefit from dictionaries again.
I noticed my fat-finger mistake, but it was too late to edit.
> worry about clear and effective communication
Oh, I do. That's why I object to using "literally" to mean "figuratively", i.e. the exact opposite.
I mean, I don't object to ignorant people using words ignorantly; but lexicographers know better, and should be calling out ignorant usages.
Color me doubleplussed
And this is we end up with words like 'combobulate'.