OOTS #1297 - The Discussion Thread

[Unoriginal]

"Exigent" is a term used to refers to the timing of a situation. It is used correctly when the situation is urgent.

"Existential" is a term used to refers to the range of a situation. It is used correctly when the situation is about the existence of something.

If there is a fire at the HQ of a company, it is an exigent issue. If the company needs to double its profit in 6 months or it will stop existing, it is an existential issue.

[Mordar]

If you're talking about "cups of people", "less" is probably more appropriate than "fewer", since it's apparently referring to a substance that can be divided arbitrarily. 3½ cups of people, for example.

The interesting things that come of these conversations.

We can count cups. 1 3/4 is fewer cups than 2...
We can measure cups. That is 1 3/4 cups of person, so less person than what the recipe recommends.

Dilemma.

In bad media SF, sure. Run the person through the teleporter, change the genome, retroframmistize them into a different phenotype. Oh look, the Captain's turning into a marmoset, kind of thing.

Well, was thinking more like CRISPR to insert some frog or caterpillar sequences into the genome. So I shouldn't have said retrovirus.

So it doesn't have to be bad SF.

- M

[gbaji]

This discusssion inspired me to look up both words in my 1951 OED:



That doesn’t entirely help, but it is enough to convince me that:

1) “exigent” generally means imminent, not ‘in existence/real/material’. The word for the latter is ‘existent’.

2) “existential” is not just an esoteric philosophical term, and use of “existential threat” to refer to a danger that threatens the (material, real) continued existence of something may be valid. (I agree that ‘existential threat’ has often been used to refer to threars that are not, in fact, a danger to existence of the country in question.)

Yup. And which of those two words would you use if you wanted people to think the thing you are taking about is really really important and we must act on it, like right now or really bad things will happen?


Then add in the historical context, that for as long as the word "existential" has existed and been in common use in the English language (for certain definitions of "common" I suppose), it has always been used to refer to more conceptual and theoretical things, and not direct and physical ones. For those of us old enough to have been adults and been involved in a wide array of conversations on various topics prior to the 2000s, whenever someone talked about something being "existential" they were *always* talking about psychological, sociological, or theoretical/conceptual ideas. Always. Anyone talking about an "existential threat" was more likely to be speaking about a problem with their coffee machine not working and making them grumpy and unhappy than some kind of actual physical harm. An "existential crisis" was generally considered to be a problem of some kind that more or less existed inside their own head and was of their own making (I can't decide if I want waffles or pancakes. That's such an existential crisis!), or some kind of identy issue (My parents want me to be a doctor, but I really want to go to art school!).

Enter folks on TV suddenly (like literally overnight) talking about real world threats and dangers and labeling them as "existential threats", and you can see how many of us kinda scratched our heads and more or less had the Inigo Montoya reaction ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"). It's not that such things and talk hadn't existed before, but no one had ever used that word to describe them. So yeah... jarring. And yes, given the specific context at the time, literally every time I heard someone use that word, my immediate thought was "Um... you mean exigent, right?". Because that was literally the word that actually fit with what they were talking about. And sure, maybe some folk's vocabulary doesn't include a word like "exigent", but mine did (and does), so yeah... to me it was like "why use that word, when there's another one that exactly matches what you are trying to say, and even sounds somewhat similar".


Again. Like I said. It's a peeve of mine. Not like there's much I can do about it. But it does really grate on me when people use the word that way. You're free to bask in your own comfort with the term if you want, but I'll always look askance at anyone who uses it that way.

It's like when someone uses "effort" as a verb. Another one of those "OMG there's already like three other words that mean exactly what you are trying to say!" things.

Or folks who don't understand angled parking. I have many many peeves...

[gbaji]

The interesting things that come of these conversations.

We can count cups. 1 3/4 is fewer cups than 2...
We can measure cups. That is 1 3/4 cups of person, so less person than what the recipe recommends.

Dilemma.

Yup.

It's fewer cups of people.
It's less people (or "parts of people") in 1 3/4 cups of people than in 2 cups of people.

Though, honestly, you'd usually refer to "fewer cups" in whole units (since we're counting the number of cups of something). Fractions are a bit akward, but I suppose still work ok. You'd usually just say that there's "less people in 1 3/4 cup than in 2 cups", and not specifically talk about the relative number of cups. If you were using "fewer", you might use a smaller measurement (fewer ounces of people, maybe?). But then we have to ask if we're doing dry or wet measurements, and by weight or volume, and that's just getting silly.

Er... how did we get on people parting? I mean, I'm all for it, but...

[brian 333]

I still think some well meaning pundits were 'corrected' by 1st gen spell checkers and they concluded that the machine was smarter.

[LadyEowyn]

Yup. And which of those two words would you use if you wanted people to think the thing you are taking about is really really important and we must act on it, like right now or really bad things will happen?

“Exigent” means “imminent”, so I would use “imminent” because that’s actually a word that people have heard. But the difference is between expressing time (this is a danger NOW) and severity (this is a threat to our existence).

I’ve heard of existentialism, but that doesn’t mean that the only valid use of “existential” is in reference to it. That’s why I checked a dictionary from the 1950s to see if it said the philosophical concept was the meaning of the word. It didn’t.

[hroþila]

Yeah "exigent" is not the same as "existential" in this sense. Something can be an existential threat without requiring immediate action

[gbaji]

“Exigent” means “imminent”, so I would use “imminent” because that’s actually a word that people have heard. But the difference is between expressing time (this is a danger NOW) and severity (this is a threat to our existence).

Well, without getting into details, lots of (mostly the same) people also used the phrase "imminent threat" during the same time period, and when speaking about the same thing(s).

It was very obvious that these same people were using the word "existential" as a synonym to "imminent". Which, I think you'll agree, it is not.

I’ve heard of existentialism, but that doesn’t mean that the only valid use of “existential” is in reference to it. That’s why I checked a dictionary from the 1950s to see if it said the philosophical concept was the meaning of the word. It didn’t.

Sure. Because "existential" means "of or about existence" (or similar). But it's not "existence" either. I'm kinda struggling to clarify the difference in syntax. If someone said "this is a threat to our existence", I'd have no problem with it. That's properly worded and means what it says. But calling something an "existential threat" is just strange wording, because you're labeling the noun "threat" with the adjective "existential". But it's not the actual threat that is "of or about existence". The adjective tells us the type of threat, not the thing being threatened.

That's why classically, when using the phrase "existential threat", you would be talking about something about reality/existence that is itself threatening to you. A realization that X is really Y. It's usually perception based though. Existence is what it is, and then you realize it possess some attribute, and then you have to react/respond to it for some reason ("I just discovered that the DMV requires that I provide 2 forms of ID to get a license. That's an existential threat to my ability to get a job as a delivery driver").

It's just not something that is appropriately applied as an attribute to some external thing being done by someone else. I mean, I suppose tangentially everything around us (ie: existence) is at least to some degree influenced by other people's actions and choices, but again, the term is more "soft" in how it's used. "That's just the way the world works", is an existential observation. It's not used to speak to something specific and immediate that someone else is doing right now. When we do that, we just talk directly about those things. "When it rains, you get wet" is an existential observation. "Joe made a cup of coffee" is just a plain old regular observation about something someone did. No need to fancify it.

Not sure how clearly I'm expressing myself here, but hoping that maybe makes a bit more sense? It's hard for me to describe perfectly, and is more one of those "I know that's just wrong" kind of things.

[Liquor Box]

Do dictionaries dictate the meaning of words or reflect the meaning of words?

I seems to me that the answer is pretty clearly both in most cases.

When each word was entered into the dictionary (or modified in the dictionary) it was done on the basis that that reflected the meaning of the word, so it reflects the meaning of words. People look up a word in the dictionary and use the word in the way prescribed - iso it dictates how that person uses the word.

[H_H_F_F]

Sure. Because "existential" means "of or about existence" (or similar). But it's not "existence" either. I'm kinda struggling to clarify the difference in syntax. If someone said "this is a threat to our existence", I'd have no problem with it. That's properly worded and means what it says. But calling something an "existential threat" is just strange wording, because you're labeling the noun "threat" with the adjective "existential". But it's not the actual threat that is "of or about existence". The adjective tells us the type of threat, not the thing being threatened.

That's why classically, when using the phrase "existential threat", you would be talking about something about reality/existence that is itself threatening to you.

I think I finally get what you're saying.

I'm not a native speaker, so I might be wrong, but I feel like English just does that some times? "Mortal Enemy" comes to mind as a very clear example.

[Unoriginal]

I think I finally get what you're saying.

I'm not a native speaker, so I might be wrong, but I feel like English just does that some times? "Mortal Enemy" comes to mind as a very clear example.

Indeed, adjectives are used to indicates how the attached noun relates to something else all the time.

Ex: "Parental" means "of or about parent", but in "parental figure" it means "the figure has a role of parent relatively to X or is seen as a parent by X". In "parental authority", it is used to indicates the authority belongs to a parent (or is similar to a parent's, in some cases). In "parental alienation", it indicates that a parent is doing the alienation, that a parent is being alienated, or both.

Another ex: A "presidential pardon" means a pardon done by the president. A "presidential impeachment" is an impeachment done to the president.

All an adjective needs to be correct is to actually relate to the noun in one way or another, but *what* the relationship is is context-dependent (unless the adjective itself indicates the relationship).

There is a reason why it is often used to either intentionally or accidentally make a sentence (or title, or descriptor) with multiple meanings. Ex: is the Bestial Sanctum in Elden Ring a place that is beast-like, a place for people who have traits associated with beasts, or a place for beasts?

EDIT:

An even better example: a "criminal activity" means doing a crime, when a "criminal investigation" means doing something to a crime. If someone was conducting an investigation in an illegal manner, calling that a "criminal investigation" would technically be correct, but it would be a play on the common phrasing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Lettuce knot overcook the infect officer generation spiel cheque on a group of very effectual, but Navy Lee trysting pub lick sneakers.

"Ham, spiel cheque core Ted existent two existent. I mustard use edit wrong."

Somebody's chatgpt needs its coffee.

The interesting things that come of these conversations.

So it doesn't have to be bad SF.

Help meeee!

“Exigent” means “imminent”, so I would use “imminent” because that’s actually a word that people have heard. But the difference is between expressing time (this is a danger NOW) and severity (this is a threat to our existence).

I’ve heard of existentialism, but that doesn’t mean that the only valid use of “existential” is in reference to it. That’s why I checked a dictionary from the 1950s to see if it said the philosophical concept was the meaning of the word. It didn’t.

Thank you for the research. And it makes sense to me.

Yeah "exigent" is not the same as "existential" in this sense. Something can be an existential threat without requiring immediate action

+1

An even better example: a "criminal activity" means doing a crime, when a "criminal investigation" means doing something to a crime. If someone was conducting an investigation in an illegal manner, calling that a "criminal investigation" would technically be correct, but it would be a play on the common phrasing.

That play on words was used in Breaking Bad to describe Saul Goodman as a criminal lawyer. (That idea was further developed in the Better Call Saul prequel series).

[gbaji]

Another ex: A "presidential pardon" means a pardon done by the president. A "presidential impeachment" is an impeachment done to the president.

That's a good one, but the use of the adjective makes it really clear what is being referred to. Pardons and impeachments are always legal actions taken by some party and granted to (or inflicted on) another. You'd also never be confused by the phrase "Senate Impeachment Hearings" and think that the Senate was what was being impeached. Or if someone did talk about a "cirminal pardon", you'd never think that a criminal was the one granting the pardon.

Usually, there's a common use of the phrase, and when using it in an uncommon manner, people usually clarify things, or use different words.

An even better example: a "criminal activity" means doing a crime, when a "criminal investigation" means doing something to a crime. If someone was conducting an investigation in an illegal manner, calling that a "criminal investigation" would technically be correct, but it would be a play on the common phrasing.

Yup. Now imagine if nearly overnight, everyone on TV started using the phrase "criminal investigation" to mean "criminals investigating things", and no one batted and eye or mentioned how kinda backwards the use was.

That's what this was like.

That play on words was used in Breaking Bad to describe Saul Goodman as a criminal lawyer. (That idea was further developed in the Better Call Saul prequel series).

I would love to believe that this was a clever play on words. But given the source(s), I'd place the odds of that at like .00000000001%, and the odds of "I asked my much higher educated than me aide/assistant to give me another word to use instead of imminent or urgent, and he came up with this one that starts with ex... something... I think I've heard it before... maybe... eh this is close!" at like 99.9999999%


I'm not at all cynical though! Nope...


But regardless of the how or why. Still just grates when I hear it used this way.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would love to believe that this was a clever play on words.

It absolutely was, the way Jesse delivered the line in Breaking Bad.

[gbaji]

It absolutely was, the way Jesse delivered the line in Breaking Bad.

I was talking about the use of the phrase "existential threat", neither being clever nor intentional.

[Peelee]

Yup. Now imagine if nearly overnight, everyone on TV started using the phrase "criminal investigation" to mean "criminals investigating things", and no one batted and eye or mentioned how kinda backwards the use was.

It would be really confusing for a little bit but then it would be clear what was meant and that would be the new way of saying it. Because, again, English is not a dead language.

[gbaji]

It would be really confusing for a little bit but then it would be clear what was meant and that would be the new way of saying it. Because, again, English is not a dead language.

Yeah. And I'm free to wave my cane and yell at it to get off my yard too!

[Peelee]

I was talking about the use of the phrase "existential threat", neither being clever nor intentional.

I highly doubt it's unintentional.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was talking about the use of the phrase "existential threat", neither being clever nor intentional.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to criminal lawyer. The confusion of multiquote strikes again.

[Doctor West]

I'm with Peelee here, even though on a personal level semantic drift is annoying to keep up with for a middle aged shut-in like myself. And I'm still privately a little annoyed by 'literally' as an intensifier. But, anybody whose really studied this stuff will tell you that's just how languages work and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if the meaning is clear to the listener.
More to the point, trying to hold it back is kind of like trying to redirect a river by shouting at it.

The sounds we make with our tongues and the squiggly lines we're all writing here have no inherent meaning in the eyes of the universe, only what we assign to them by mass consent.

[Peelee]

I'm with Peelee here, even though on a personal level semantic drift is annoying to keep up with for a middle aged shut-in like myself. And I'm still privately a little annoyed by 'literally' as an intensifier. But, anybody whose really studied this stuff will tell you that's just how languages work and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if the meaning is clear to the listener.
More to the point, trying to hold it back is kind of like trying to redirect a river by shouting at it.

The sounds we make with our tongues and the squiggly lines we're all writing here have no inherent meaning in the eyes of the universe, only what we assign to them by mass consent.

Imean, I'm not goin to pretend I'm above being annoyed by things people say. My biggest one is when people say "I" when "me" should be used, which happens, like, all the time. Especially in shows/movies when a character is supposed to be more educated, which ironically makes me think that the writers aren't good at writing people smarter than the writers.

But I know it's a lost cause.

[brian 333]

"My bad."

Your bad what? Or did 'bad' turn into a noun when I wasn't looking?

Verbing was bad enough. I go to a party, but do I party? Or if I pronounce it "partay" is it a completely different word? At least nouns and verbs have a long and dishonorable tradition of trading places. But adjectives?

"My blue." "My fast." "My hot."

It must be that there was no common word available to use instead of 'bad' in such circumstances, in which case, I apologize for my mistake.

English is not only a living language, it is inherently mutable. When the earliest English scholars began to codify the language, even simple, common words like 'egg' had many pronunciations, sometimes differing greatly between native English speakers less than a day's walk apart. Their decisions on what was 'correct' were biased and arbitrary.

But no sooner than they had begun to make headway on the project, Queen Victoria came along and changed everything, so the official spelling no longer reflected the common pronunciation in many cases. And at the same time English ate a bunch of other languages then started spitting out new words faster than the linguists could keep up. But they kept at it because excessive linguistic snobbery earns one a padded chair in a university somewhere, (and an endowment, which is French for getting paid to be snooty.)

Now add to that the time-honored English tradition of generational slang, and we have a hot mess.

Do I do the bear while I spark my girl? Or do I telephone her for a ride in my flivver? Perhaps I cut a rug with my baby doll? Maybe I chill out with a chick? Or do I chill with my phat lady? Maybe I'll txt my biatch and we can stream a Netflix? Or livechat my girlfriend during lockdown?

English is incredibly messy, and while I think certain uses are annoying, I have to remember that in 1970, when I was hunting foxes and hanging out with my bros listening to groovy sounds, my parents' generation thought I was a complete idiot.

[The MunchKING]

"My bad."

Your bad what? Or did 'bad' turn into a noun when I wasn't looking?.

Yes, Yes it did.

[Unoriginal]

I have to remember that in 1970, when I was hunting foxes and hanging out with my bros listening to groovy sounds, my parents' generation thought I was a complete idiot.

To be fair, listening to groovy sounds seems like it'd be a major hindrance when you're hunting foxes.

[KorvinStarmast]

To be fair, listening to groovy sounds seems like it'd be a major hindrance when you're hunting foxes.

I suspect that the foxes being hunted were bipeds...

[The MunchKING]

I suspect that the foxes being hunted were bipeds...

Kitsune will wreck you even harder than normal foxes if you hunt them. They have curses and stuff.

Do I do the bear while I spark my girl?

Well, if you're doing a bear WHILE sparking your girl, you're not only a braver man than I, Gunga Din, but WAY kinkier. I only hope everyone's into that or it's going to get messy fast.

[Tzardok]

I'm completely foxed by these unbearable wordplay.

[Mordar]

It must be that there was no common word available to use instead of 'bad' in such circumstances, in which case, I apologize for my mistake.

I very much like what you did there.

I could care less.

- M

[Peelee]

English is incredibly messy, and while I think certain uses are annoying, I have to remember that in 1970, when I was hunting foxes and hanging out with my bros listening to groovy sounds, my parents' generation thought I was a complete idiot.

If it make you feel any better, even odds that your kids agree with your parents.

[brian 333]

To be fair, listening to groovy sounds seems like it'd be a major hindrance when you're hunting foxes.

The groovy sounds were solid fox bait, bro. Especially if it had a little funk on it.

If it make you feel any better, even odds that your kids agree with your parents.

Sadly, I lost that bet long ago, and in the next generation it just got worse. My lady's grand daughter was on the phone with her friend, and when her grandmother called her I heard her say, "I hafta talk old a minit."

I would have been outraged, but I was too busy laughing.