Greg EganMay 23, 2023
“The core meaning of refute is ‘prove a statement or theory to be wrong.’ In the second half of the 20th century a more general sense developed, meaning simply ‘deny.’ Traditionalists object to this newer use as a degradation of the language, but it is widely encountered.”
Keep “refute”≈“disprove”
84.5%
Let the meaning blur
15.5%
Poll ended at .
Show threadPaul Graham Raven
@gregeganSF Voted to retain, but in the full knowledge that fighting semiotic drift is a King Canute sort of gig. Much as we might wish otherwise, people take the Humpty Dumpty approach to language, for reasons both fair and foul: "When I use a word [...] it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
May 23, 2023 at 8:13amWeb
Show threadGreg EganMay 23, 2023
@PaulGrahamRaven Yes, but “people” includes everyone, including those who choose to retain the original meaning, and those who are swayed by public discussion of the merits of an incipient change. And just as there is no committee empowered to enforce the earlier or current usage of a word, there is no law of nature that guarantees that every linguistic trend that ever occurs will continue to completion. Some look as if they’re going to last for decades, then wither away in a year or two.
Show threadPaul Graham RavenMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF Yeah, fair point. I guess I take a more entropic view, which we can probably put down to my engagement with media theory...
Show threadJeremy SmythMay 23, 2023

@gregeganSF @PaulGrahamRaven
Sometimes it's cultural or generational; In my part of the world, "deadly", "savage", and "fire" are used as adjectives to describe something as exceptionally good, with the set of such words evolving over time.

Those words haven't lost their original meaning, so the context is important.

Show threadXenharmonic ForestMay 23, 2023
@gregeganSF @PaulGrahamRaven interesting idea. I wonder if there are historical examples of words tending towards being diluted but later regaining their original meaning (more or less) exclusively