this has been driving me crazy for over a fortnight!

there are words and phrases that are used incorrectly that mean the opposite of what the speaker intends. there are other words and phrases that, over time, come to mean the opposite of what they originally meant. but then there are some words that exist with opposing definitions simultaneously, and they just blows my mind!

i.e. vs. e.g. q.e.d.

there are a million articles explaining the difference between i.e. and e.g. but they still get used rather interchangeably.

so for the quick and dirty:

i.e. = "in other words"
e.g. = "for example"

but they are never supposed to both work in the same spot

is that sarcasm؟

the symbol seen here, known as a percontation point, irony mark, snark, or zing, is also the symbol used in this blog's logo.

clearly a backwards question mark, this symbol first appeared in the late 1500s at then end of a rhetorical question, and was used to denote general irony at the end of the 19th century, but it has never been widely used.

my personal thought is that the world is finally ready for this symbol, and in fact we need it. this symbol could be a powerful tool for implying sarcasm (a form of verbal irony) in instant messaging, texting, and general textual forms of communication.

as a last note, because this symbol is represented by simply using an arabic question mark, it can really mess with your computer when you type it... it can make you type backwards and it is difficult to delete, so be warned؟

qualtification of detection

i play pretty fast and loose using these interchangeably and synonymously with perceivable, noticeable, etc, but apparently they are all distinct adjectives for qualtification of things we can detect, feel, or measure:

• appreciable - highly noticeable or definitely measurable (from latin "appretiare" meaning "to appraise")
• perceptible - can be discerned to a minimal extent (e.g. "barely" or "scarely")
• palpable - quite noticeable via the senses despite lacking physical substance ("a palpable chill in the air")
• tangible - capable of being handled or grasped, either physically or mentally

[via]

qualtify

oversimplified to a fault for the purpose of illustrating the difference:

qualify - what kind?
quantify - how much?

usually only one of these is used to measure something, but there are occasions when it is necessary to qualify AND quantify something. in these cases it is tedious to always spell out both words, so may i suggest

qualtify - how much of which kind?

a great example of a portmanteau, this word appears frequently in a liminary google search as a typo ("do i qualtify for this home loan?" "high qualtify speakers"), but i do not see any legitimate uses in the results.

this post may seem frivilous but will be useful for my next post ;-)

sporks and brangelinas

a portmanteau is a sort of "frankenword;" two or more words combined together to amalgamate their individual attributes with functional (and sometimes humorous) intent. the joke here is that "frankenword" is itself a portmanteau, adding the patched-together qualities of frankenstein's monster to a word.

etymological excerpt from wikipedia:

The usage of the word "portmanteau" in this sense first appeared in Lewis Carroll's book Through the Looking-Glass (1871), in which Humpty Dumpty explains to Alice the coinage of the unusual words in Jabberwocky:

"‘Slithy’ means ‘lithe and slimy’... You see it's like a portmanteau—there are two meanings packed up into one word"

"‘Mimsy’ is ‘flimsy and miserable’ (there's another portmanteau ... for you)".

other common portmanteau words include spork, bridezilla, labradoodle, brangelina, and wikipedia! (don't let your mind melt while reading the wikipedia entry on wikipedia)

Vibrato vs Tremolo

my personal experience with these two words is that most everyone knows vibrato and uses it to describe the way opera singers sing. but i had never heard of tremolo until very recently when i came across it while trying to achieve a vibrato effect in audacity.

i started to wonder why the same effect had two different names so i started to inquire into tremolo vs vibrato via google. i only got to "tremolo v" and it autosuggested exactly what i was looking for. it turns out i was incorrectly assuming the two words were the same. the auditory difference is very subtle but the definition is quite clear.

vibrato, italian for vibration, is the rapid fluctuation in pitch, while
tremolo, also italian (arent all musical words?) means "trembling," and while it can refer to rapid strumming or drumming, it more generally means a rapid fluctuation in amplitude.

the more i think about it, im not sure i can tell the difference when i hear an opera singer who is using vibrato (yet further investigation shows it clearly is):

prolific

i once got into an argument over the definition of prolific with a friend whilst playing super smash brothers.

for some reason i had always associated 'prolific' with 'undying' or 'living a long time' e.g. methuselah was very prolific, living to be 900 years old, or rasputin was prolific because he just wouldn't die despite everyone's best efforts.

i lost the argument; prolific as my friend defined it was "intellectually productive" i.e. used to describe an author who had written many books.

what reminded me of this was today seeing a definition for the word philoprogenitive which had 'prolific' listed as a synonym. philoprogenitive (philo- meaning "having an affinity for" and progenitus meaning "offspring") means tend to produce many offspring and can refer to plants or animals (e.g. a successful apple tree is very philoprogenitive)

i looked deeper into the definition of prolific and it turns out prolific means this exact same thing - tending to have bountiful offspring/fruit production. in the case of a writer or artist, the 'fruits' of their labor is their books and artworks. somehow the word formed this niche and the general definition faded so it now usually only refers to somebody who produces many intellectual works.

among and amongst

among and amongst are both the same word! i was wondering why we have both, and if one was not actually a real word (like irregardless) but it turns out amongst is used commonly in the UK and among is more common in the US. this is similar to many other words such as colour/color, shoppe/shop, etc. this pairing is notable because the two words are not only spelled differently, but pronounced differently.

can you think of any others like this? how about aluminum/aluminium?

etymology of blog title

just as a small first note, i will explain the title of this blog: "linguisteresis"

linguistics is the study of language, no suprise there. i have never taken any linguistics classes or done anything worth note regarding linguistics, but it is a field i find very fascinating and the more you dig into it the more you realize how little you know. just take a look at this sample wikipedia entry about 'rhotic consonants' and you will know what i mean. i am so blown away by the differences in language and how much there is to learn about the names of the different sounds, voiced and unvoiced, that humans can make.

the second half of the title comes from the word hysteresis. hysteresis is basically when something is path dependent. for example: the building i work in has two paths to my desk. when i arrive in the morning i always take one path and when i leave at night i always take the other path. they are about the same distance so i am never saving time choosing one over the other, but i am quite consistent subconsciously.

a picture commonly associated with hysteresis is seen here (just ignore the labels):

interestingly this is the exact shape of the hallways to and from my desk as i described them before. another common occurrence of hysteresis in my field involves electrical amplifiers, which often have different threshold voltages before switching rails depending on if the input is getting larger or shrinking.

together these two words describe my purpose in writing this blog. i am interested not just in language, but in how we use different methods of conveying the same meaning when one may be more efficient (but not always)

purpose

this is the innaugural post of linguisteresis, a blog about interesting observations of the english language.

I wanted to create this blog because i often come across weird word rules, common mistakes people make, and interesting etymologies and since this is not my area of expertise i need a new outlet for them. i have bad luck keeping up with blogs but since ideas are always coming to me i think this one will stick.

I will also be reiterating some previous posts from other blogs i have written if they are applicable. Enjoy!