this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
640 points (89.7% liked)
memes
18374 readers
2366 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Apparently, to mean the climax rather than the increase leading to it.
It's supposed to mean an increase in volume, but instead it now means a climax. Saying something will "rise to a crescendo" is a popular saying, I've seen many good writers say it, but it is wrong. The rising part IS the Crescendo, and the proper way to say it would be that something "crescendoed to a climax." It is a specific musical term, with a specific musical meaning, and non-musical people have adopted it improperly.
Civilians can't just come in and start stealing jargon words and apply their own non-jargon meanings. We rely on those meanings to communicate in that world. It would be like suddenly calling a tire iron a stethoscope, and not understanding why a doctor would think that's stupid.
This is (literally) one of the more insane takes I've ever seen about language. You want jargon to apply only as jargon meaning in all contexts? Lay usage aside, what about when two fields of study use the same word? Battle royale to see who gets to keep it?
Obviously you look into the literature to see who has the first claim, and they get to keep it. The others have to edit and re-print the entirety of the corpus.
Sounds reasonable to me.
There is certain language that is technical to specific things.
A writer wants to borrow language from other worlds to add spice to their writing, so perhaps they borrow a musical term because they think it will describe an action with a special flair. He basically knows that the word Crescendo is a word that somehow relates to intensity, although he's not exactly sure of the nuance of it, but it has a really musical sound, and will add some nice flavor to his sentence. So he writes about something "rising to a crescendo" and every person who ever had band as a kid, or took piano lessons, etc. CRINGES.
It's not just about shifting language, it's about writers not offending their readers with imprecise, poorly chosen words. A writer should strive to choose the absolute correct word, with the exact nuance, and using Crescendo in place of Climax is an egregious example of a poor, imprecise choice that compromised the narrative, and worse, makes the reader question the writer's competency.
Truman Capote once sat at a bar with another writer, who said "I've spent all day working on one page," and Capote said "I spent all day working on one word."
That's because he wanted to choose the exact word, with the precise nuance, to tell his story. I believe that Capote would agree with me about Crescendo.
A writer once put the letter 's' in 'eiland' in order to make the word look more Latin. This, despite the fact that the word 'island' has no Latin roots. It caught on and now that is the proper spelling of 'island' and you'd be a fool to try to force people to spell it 'eiland'.
English is used by the unwashed masses and trying to get it to adhear to strict rules or not change will be as effective as trying to stop a flood by holding out your hand.
English was not exactly right when you were born with the spelling of 'island' and was wrong hundreds of years ago with 'eiland', nor is it wrong that dumb means stupid instead of mute, or literally can be used to mean figuratively.
Gif þū ne sacast for eftcyme to Eald Englisc, þonne is hit līcnessēocnes tō sacanne þæt sprǣc ne mæg wrixlan.
I sure hope you say pizzas are disk-shaped, not circle-shaped.
Disk and circle are properly defined geometric terms. Civilians can't just come in and start misusing them.
To be fair maybe you do make the difference between disks and circles, but the point is, you (and everyone) almost certainly "abuse" some other language element that will also annoy somebody else. And if they corrected you, when all your life you and people around you had done the same abuse and understood each other perfectly, you'd think, rightly, that they are being pedantic.
Do you mean Disk, or Disc?
Both spellings are accepted to designate the mathematical object. I think it's mostly a UK vs US spelling but please don't quote me on that.
EDIT just realised I missed the opportunity to answer with the extremely unhelpful mathematician response: "yes"
Look it up, it's actually fairly complicated, depending on whether you are talking about storage media, vertebrae, Frisbees, etc. and then there is a layer of US vs UK that gets involved.
Oh, yeah, and as for the answer about pizzas, they're Round. I've never called one a disk(c), or a circle.
I am talking about none of these things. I am talking about the well-defined, mathematical concept called a disk (or disc). That is, the flat surface bounded by a circle. In the same way that if I was talking about a square in the sense of a shape, I would be talking about the geometric object, not a square as in "town square" (yes they often have four sides too, and no, they're not always square shaped).
Re disk: I have seen both spellings in the maths literature, I just am not sure whether the distinction is as simple as US vs UK, or if it is more granular (Cambridge vs Oxford for instance), and whether there is also a temporal element to it.
Also, I am sorry that this is now so needlessly pedantic, but it kinda sorta proves my point. We don't need all that to agree that pizzas are circle shaped, and I would not actually have corrected you and said "no, they are a disk!". All of that is pseudo-intellectual wank in the context of talking about pizzas.
EDIT re your "round" shadow edit. Well now you're just deliberately missing the point. Have a good day.
I understand that civilians are under no obligation to follow the rules of language, but writers should be striving for precision in their language. Impressionism doesn't really work for literature. You can't be blurry.
From the perspective of a person who relies on specific language in their sector, like music or science or auto mechanics, seeing a word that has a specific, precise definition that we rely on to communicate within that world, being used incorrectly, doesn't just muddy the writer's narrative and meaning, it compromises the writer's integrity, and questions their competence. They are writers, shouldn't they know the precise meanings of every single word they use, and use it in the proper context?
A good musician knows every single note they are playing, and that note's context within the harmonic and formal structure of the work they are playing. Even a single wrong note is absolutely unacceptable. If a musician played with the same acceptance of imprecision that this thread is suggesting is okay for writers, they would never be considered a competent musician.
There is no problem with a writers using specific jargon to elevate their prose, but they have an obligation to use those terms precisely. Otherwise, just make up your own words. Stop fucking up everybody else's, especially those that require precise meanings in their original, normal use.
Won't read the rest, this is enough for me to understand you're now either arguing in bad faith, or are ignorant of how language evolves. Is English you first language? Look up the contributions of Shakespeare to the language. Are you Italian, like "piccolo" could suggest? Look at Dante Alighieri.
Your language would be different without the freedom that writers take over the ages, and for one thing you're unhappy about, there are a myriad you don't even think twice about, and hopefully, quite a few metaphorical and poetic idioms that you find beautiful.
I won't engage further. Have a good day.
The concept that precision in meaning isn't important to writing is silly. Literary license is one thing, but using words that are flatly wrong and then demanding they be accepted is nonsense.
Would you be so understanding if some artists wanted to start labelling the color red as blue, because they feel like it, and they don't care how confusing it is, or how dumb it makes them look?
Or if musicians started playing random accidentals in their Bach performances, because they don't feel it's important to alter keys at their whim?
That would be the equivalent of a writer inserting bacon random words.
The musical equivalent would be a musician making a deliberate choice to alter the performance because they like how it changes the piece. I would be perfectly fine with that.
is Tire Iron, the same as Tyre Lever?
collapsed inline media
Looks like a stethoscope to me.
Everyone can do with a language whatever the fuck they want.
Intelligibility is the only rule in a living language.
So go suck your bravura, and prima vista all over your colla voce.
That's odd
Well yes it is to me too seeing as that abuse was not made, to my knowledge at least, in my native language.
But then I thought, "well if there is a crescendo, unless it goes on forever, there will be a climax". So I kinda get where the abuse (or misunderstanding, or literary license, or whatever the intent is) comes from. I don't, personally, agree with it, so won't use it that way. But whatever I personally think is irrelevant, at least now I am aware someone might mean that. So I guess now, in English at least, it's been long enough and widespread enough it's no longer an abuse (colloquially speaking)
The climax one is in the dictionary.
I'm pretty sure this battle was lost a long time ago. No idea why OP thinks it wasn't.