• jqubed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 hours ago

    “Who buys our s**t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**‘s in it.”

    Maybe, I dunno, make it more healthful?

    (English pedant peeve: food is not “healthy” or unhealthy; it’s healthful or unhealthful. Living things are healthy, nutrients are healthful. A state of health versus a beneficial quality.)

    • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Technically correct, but actual usage has made “healthy” synonymous with “healthful” as well as far more commonly used. The distinction was pretty useless, anyway. A “who/whom” situation.

      • Aeao@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Obligatory “technically correct, the best kind of correct”

        That’s how English works. It’s usage. I think the French have a council that decides but English moves a lot faster.

        I get having a pet peeve. I for one hate that ignorant means uneducated when it should be someone who is willfully ignoring. That’s just not the way it played out.

        I love dictionaries and word usage. “Healthful” is a clunky word, I’m not surprised we moved to “healthy “

        Edit: I just realized “helpful” sounds just fine. But if someone said to me “thanks for being so helpy today” I would be a full of seething hatred lol

        • samus12345@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          26 minutes ago

          “Healthy” has always been an actual word, while “helpy” hasn’t, so no wonder it’s grating!

          I’m all for language changing when it makes sense. I can’t think of any situation where using “healthy” instead of “healthful” obfuscates the meaning in any way. Same with “who” and “whom.” “Whom” and “healthful” could disappear and nothing of value would be lost. But when it comes to things like “literally” meaning “figuratively,” I mourn the loss of utility the word used to have.

          • Aeao@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 minutes ago

            Knock knock

            Who’s there

            To

            To who?

            It’s to whom actually.

            Yes as long as what you’re saying makes sense that’s all that matters. Language is just the sound you make to communicate the idea in your head to someone else.

            The opposite tho is names. I’m Michael. Not Mike. It doesn’t offended me to be called Mike but that’s not the sound your face needs to make to get my attention. It’s a different sound.

            But for just talking… “I stop speak right but you can hold it, then where’s the rub?”

            I actually would play around by calling “money” different things. See how weird I could get. “Bucks” fine. Doodlyfranks? In context it works just fine. You can call money anything. Since fallout I regularly say “I’m short on caps” no one’s ever questioned it.

          • Aeao@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            60 seconds ago

            Omg I just realized my money concept also applies to sex.

            “My wife and I were slapping the banker last night, she got to keep the change”