I am whelmed by this exchange
I’m somewhat gruntled
This whole exchange is tressing.
It’s perfectly cromulent
I’m pretty ert right now.
This is so turbing.
I am the-moon.
whelm /wĕlm, hwĕlm/
transitive verb- To cover with water; submerge.
- To overwhelm.
OP wants to let you know that this exchange made them wet ☝️🤓
Everything reminds me of her.
Technically correct (still the best kind of correct). However, the meaning has changed a but due to the word’s falling into disuse. Colloquially, it is now used as a mid-point between overwhelmed and underwhelmed, describing a situation as a mundane experience. Not disappointing, too stimulating, or even satisfying; just neutral (“Tell my wife I said ‘Hello’”).
I’m frankly plussed.
Ok Robin
Brian represents that group of people that just say, “No it’s not!”, with authority. I forgot what they call themselves.
Idiots?
Brian?
Contrarians?
OMG no. That’s not it! Jesus
🤣
Contrabrians
Confidently incorrect, to me at least.
The call themselves right. But not in the sense that they’re aligned with that political ideology. They just think they’re the only correct ones and everyone… else… is… (…wait a second…).
Not coincidental, they both stem from the directional description “right”.
In Old English riht meant both straight and not left. That’s why “go right ahead” and “go straight ahead” are synonymous even tho that sense has been largely lost.
“Right” then got the sense of proper/correct, likely because right-handedness is more common and thus the right hand was associated with being the “correct” hand. This is why you are “dextrous”, from Latin dexter meaning directionally right.
The political “right” as in conservative also comes from the direction right because in the French National Assembly after the 1789 revolution, the conservatives sat on the right while the progressives were seated on the left.
I’m too dumb to get this one…why is this funny?
Merriam-Webster is literally the dictionary, and Brian is trying to correct them on what is and is not a word.
Yes that part I get, but I don’t get the reply from the Merriam Webster account and why that is funny
Because they’re being like “bro please, come on“
Huh…what they actually write in the response in no way suggests that to me, it’s just completely nonsensical like they started typing the response but accidentally hit send too soon and just didn’t bother fixing it.
The punctuation is pretty clear tho.
Well, then you learned something new today. Be glad and enjoy your enlightenment 🤗
ExcessShiv.
Dude.
Outstanding
Mom: Ok, let’s get in the car, time to go.
Child named Brian: But there is no car.
Mom: Brian!
You’ve excellently demonstrated how different contexts makes different things work…you scenario has no similarities to the image
I think you were correct in your top comment
It’s a joke. You don’t get it.
That’s okay
You can’t act like a precise robot that is always right and also beep your red sirens when other people are seeing humor that you don’t see. If you’re being a robot then chances are you are wrong about the jokes.
In this case the juxtaposition of the natural in-person way of speaking and the unnatural asynchronous text chat if twitter is the source of the humor. When you say that the two scenarios are not similar, that is part of the engine that drives the joke and makes it funny. It’s as if you see shutting everyone down for misunderstanding that it was not a sports bar but in fact a metal pipe that the two men walked into when the one man ducked.
I am merely intending to show how ‘just saying someone’s name’ can be taken as a reprimand/mild reproach. Which is what is happening in the original image.
At this point so many people have explained this that I feel you might be willfully ignorant. Cut it out.
@ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com ExcessShiv.
Mate, I felt the same way. Made no sense to me. Give me an “…” or something.
Given the period, there is an unwritten sigh at the beginning. With maybe a presumed pointing at their name that Brian either missed, or doesn’t know.
Their response is “Brian…”. Like “let me hold your hand whole I say this”
It looks weird because they tagged him first
Ah, that was a tag. I’m too unfamiliar with Twitter lol.
Alternatively, he’s saying that these are not in fact unprecedented times.
Although it is an American dictionary, so it’s only going to be correct some of the time.
Dude’s arguing with the dictionary.
Like I already wrote in a different reply, that part I get, it’s the Merriam Webster response that doesn’t make sense to me.
So you’ve learned today that you can just say someone’s name as an equivalent to an exasperated "bro… "
I feel bad you’re getting down voted, because I was thinking the same thing. If the reply was just “Brian.” I suppose it would have made more sense to me. But since they tagged his full name first, it was throwing me off.
The difference is you’re acknowledging it now that you get it. Other person is just being deliberately obtuse. The downvotes are entirely appropriate.
It’s a bit refreshing to see a red arrow, tho. Gotten bored of blue.
Is he arguing with fhe dictionary?!!wtf
My opinion is that once someone invents a word, it exists forever, even if it’s later marked as obsolete/archaic.
Conversely, just because the dictionary doesn’t have a word, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I agree but he is saying the opposite lol
I know lol
Just reminded me of those that consider the dictionary a holy book, and new words against the Rules of Nature™
Many words are forgotten, so I disagree with that they exist forever.
Yeah, I can say all manner of things like bork and twiddledee, but I don’t think I can get marblegargler to stick.
Unless a meme picks it up or is in at least the urban dictionary, it doesn’t count.
Fiddlesticks. “marblegargler” is perfectly cromulent. ;)
Who says you can’t hear tone in text?
In what was almost certainly a precedented move, Brian was wrong.
And so is my spell-checker.
whoever runs their social media types pure fire.
I’m more of a Wictionary guy, myself.
Is that a dictionary for witches? Or did you misspell wiktionary?
people don’t understand how lexicons work. imagine thinking the dictionary gets to decide what is and isn’t a word… go blork yourselves
edit: just so we’re clear, im not saying brian is right, i’m saying this shit isnt fucking funny, because its humor relies on the dictionary being an authority. it’s just someone saying “brian” and its funny because they’re webster? who the fuck cares, let brian be a tweaker. wasted a minute of my life by posting this and now 7 minutes with these dumbass replies
If you lean towards descriptivism, it would be extremely strange to tell another group that their word with citable usage isn’t real.
If you lean towards prescriptivism, then Merriam-Webster is literally the dictionary.
Brian doesn’t have a leg to stand on for either side.
I mean, I am going to presume he has two legs to stand on.
OrgunDonor.
Not anymore!
Except precedented is definitely a word that is used, particularly in the legal field, so the dictionary would definitely win that argument.
A couple of decades in the future the addition of “Presidented” to American English (verb: to arbitrarily make a declaration or issue an order, implicitly illegally) will really confuse things
That’s Presidential vs Unpresidential
i never said it wasnt???
Imagine thinking Brian Tarbell Brian gets to decide
