“Did anyone notice the funny that you could literally only guess at?”
Odd way to write.
Well, it is obvious that calque is not a calque. But I did not care to notice that until it was pointed out explicitly.
curated tumblr is the best sub on reddit and lemmy
It will be a memorable day when I see on Lemmy a screenshot of a Twitter, Tumblr or Reddit post screenshotting Lemmy.
Hey Japan? Yeah we already have three discreet words for “savory,” “meaty,” and “delicious” - you can have your ambiguous catch-all back.
Sure but having a singular catchall for the phenomena around that taste is actually better and I would argue more discrete (wait wtf is it discrete or discreet?). Imagine if we had to describe the fundamental tastes like this:
- Salty
- Sweet
- Sour
- Bitter
- Savory, meaty and delicious
Except that you can have savory that isn’t meaty, meaty that isn’t savory, and deliciousness is 100% subjective, so I’m afraid your logic for replacing 3 different English adjectives with one Japanese one is fundamentally flawed. If anything, Japanese needs to pick one definition and import some new words to make up the difference.
Or just admit that the languages work differently and that what works for Japanese doesn’t work for English, and trying to make it fit just sounds pretentious.
I guess I’ve never put enough thought into it to feel the term was pretentious. Based on my understanding of what the term was describing, I figured that the Japanese had just come up with a good bow to put on a complex flavor that is difficult to sum up succinctly in English. Calling the flavor “meaty” is not very complete at all because really what is being described is not a meat flavor but something that often is paired with meat flavoring. Mushrooms have umami, and beef jerky, and cheddar cheese, and ghee, yet none of these things taste much of anything alike.
You’re right that something can be meaty but not savory, and to your defense I should not have claimed “deliciousness” as a component of umami—that’s not really a taste descriptor but a preference. I find tart green olives to be delicious (and incredibly savory) but my fiance hates them. But the point about savoriness and meatiness is that they are both just incomplete, adjacent terms to describe a particular flavor profile missing in English. Savory is probably the closest match, but even so could something be umami and not savory?
Post about linguistics, but they used i.e. when they meant e.g.
Ugh, you’re one of THOSE…
The colloquial use is only better when it enhances understanding of what you’re trying to say. Mixing up eg and ie does the opposite and every time you mean figuratively but say literally, an angel is waterboarded.
In conclusion: stop torturing angels.
Correct. Literally, and literally all of its synonyms, really, truly, actually, honestly, etc, have been used as intensifiers for hundreds of years. Both for factually true and hyperbolic statements. The real irony is that a real purist against evolving usage of words should stop and look at the word a little harder, it originally was used in regards to literature. Specifically letters, as in correspondence, IIRC. Using it to mean something that is precisely true is just as much a perversion as any meaning that came after that.
Anyone looking to remember the difference: “id est” (that is) vs “exemplī grātiā” (for the sake of an example). You use the first to clarify meaning, and the second to begin a non-exhaustive list of examples.
What matters is ultimately if you can convey your ideas, so using the wrong term is fine when people can still figure out what you meant. But it’s still a good idea to learn the difference, because there will be times when mixing up “i.e.” and “e.g.” will create ambiguity or misunderstanding.
The best idea is maybe to use “for example” or “that is to say”. The former could be abbreviated to “f.ex.” like in Norwegian, and the latter could be abbreviated “t.i.t.s.”
…Alright, on second thought maybe don’t abbreviate that one.
In any case, the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends avoiding use of “e.g.” and “i.e.” in regular running text altogether, saying that these abbreviations are better fit for parentheticals, quotations, citations, tables, and lists. This is because there is no word or character limit on Wikipedia, nor is there on Tumblr, and so the language is more clear when abbreviations are avoided. Even when someone is using “i.e.” and “e.g.” in the prescribed way, that doesn’t guarantee that the reader knows the distinction.
what is the point of the distinction even? ‘that is’ make sense to introduce an example and vice versa
I guess another way to put it is that “i.e.” is more specific while “e.g.” is more general. So “i.e.” carries an energy of “I am referring very specifically to the following” while “e.g.” means “there are other things that I’m not mentioning”. So the use of “i.e.” in the Tumblr post would imply that “tattoo”, “sushi”, and “guillotine” are the only loanwords in the English language.
One gives a definition or clarification and the other is a set of examples. If you do that with a word that your listener has never seen or heard before, you will miscommunicate.
Here watch when I use made up words:
I enjoy multifacetous martialific numbrate (i.e., chess).
If I selected carelessly, does this mean I like games or that I specifically like chess? Maybe here it doesn’t matter, but what if I’m describing a category of things I’m allergic to vs a specific example? It’s worth being able to articulate either case distinctly no?
I remember “eg” as “example given” and “ie” as “in explanation”. Nice mnemonic ways imho
Felt like I was having a déjà vu when watching Tom Scott’s latest video (https://youtu.be/TFpzps-DCb0) but I dug a bit deep to find where I read it. He spoke about the same thing!