I do not think that word means what you think it means
Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 7:32 AM | Writer's Cramp ;)
Came across these old articles discussing the misunderstood meanings of “bemused” and “nonplussed” and I admit, I felt vindicated after reading about the shifting meaning of both.
Perplexed by “Nonplussed” and “Bemused”
I reached my 30s before finding out the traditional meanings of “bemused” and “nonplussed”. Imagine my disappointment when I learned that the former meant “confused or puzzled”. Not only did I have to do a find/replace in my massive nearly-finished first book, but I felt like I’d lost a useful word that conveyed the perfect mix of detached amusement, particularly in describing a character. When I discovered that nonplussed didn’t mean, as I’d always thought, “unperturbed”, but rather, “perplexed”, I was doubly dismayed. Another useful word eliminated from my toolbox!
So I was, as I said, vindicated in reading these articles. According to linguists, both words are undergoing the evolution of meaning that is the natural process of a living language. These alternate meanings are even starting to appear in dictionaries.
But now I’m in a quandary: do I start reusing these very useful words in my writing again in the way I’ve always understood them, reinserting them where the substitutes I’d replaced them with just weren’t as perfect? And if I do, am I risking a potential agent’s or editor’s derision for incorrectly using these words in the same way they’d deride me for, say, misusing “between” in place of “among”? Or worse, risk confusing a reader, who has a different understanding of their meanings than I do?
According to Garner’s, I should avoid such words altogether:
When a word undergoes a marked change from one use to another — a phase that might take ten years or a hundred — it’s likely to be the subject of dispute. Some people (Group 1) insist on the traditional use; others (Group 2) embrace the new use. … A word is most hotly disputed in the middle part of this process: any use of it is likely to distract some readers. The new use seems illiterate to Group 1; the old use seems odd to Group 2. The word has become “skunked.”
So even though history and the inevitability of change are on my side, in order to avoid confusion, “bemused” and “nonplussed” must be purged from my vocabulary entirely. Boo hiss to that, I say.
This is the same problem that happens with the old rule about not ending sentences in prepositions: the rule isn’t so hard and fast as many people were taught, but if you buck tradition and end a sentence with “for”, you risk your grammar skills being called into question by readers who didn’t get the memo that the preposition rule is bunk.
Sigh. I am a lover of words at heart, but sometimes they test even my patience.
language in on writing
Reader Comments (3)
As painful as it will be, I think avoiding those terms is best. Periodically checking for word meanings that change will be your new free time activity!
Along with removing dead people from phone books.
I had fun using "bemused" in a historical novel in its 19th century senses of both "a bit confused" and "struck by the muse, abstracted..." and it always sort of bugs me to see it used in the sense that it's beginning to take on. But in a contemporary context, I would avoid it altogether.
I've seen nonplussed confused with nonchalant so many times that it's another word I just chuck out.
Sad--but then there are so many words in English, we can afford to sacrifice a few of them.