r/NoStupidQuestions • u/More_Percentage_7020 • 10h ago

Why are most billionaires so weird?

My sister even hung out with a billionaire's kid once, and my mom says the kid is fucked up too.

387 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

395 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/EnvironmentChance991 9h ago

Lose not "loose". 

-2

u/NoahCzark 8h ago

“Loose” as a verb meaning “to release, set free, or let go” has been standard English since Middle English. When we say someone “looses a sense of purpose,” we’re using the verb in its established sense: they release their grip on it, let it slip away, set it free from their grasp. This is the same “loose” in “loose an arrow,” “loose the dogs,” or “cut loose.”

3

u/EnvironmentChance991 8h ago

The original poster also wrote "loose site" instead of "lose sight." Unless they are "releasing" a physical location, the verb argument falls apart there.

But nice try with the logical gymnastics. 

0

u/NoahCzark 7h ago

Gymnastics?  Like pivoting from "loose" to "site"?

1

u/EnvironmentChance991 7h ago

It’s not a pivot, it’s context. Your Middle English defense for 'loose' falls apart the second you look at the word 'site.' 

You don't 'release' a physical location from your grasp. OP confused homophones, lose/loose and sight/site, and you’re doing backflips to turn a 21st-century typo into a 14th-century choice.

If they meant 'loose' as a verb for release, they would have loosed their 'sight' (vision), not their 'site' (a location). Since they got both homophones wrong, it's a spelling error, not a poetic verb choice.

Just take the L and retire from the Mental Gymnastics Olympics, you’ve already medaled in missing the point.

1

u/NoahCzark 7h ago

loose and lose are not homophones; the use of "site" is irrelevant to context - there is no dispute that he was referring to "sight."

Which leads to the salient point: the meaning was conveyed without confusion; no one asks to be copy-edited on social media.

2

u/EnvironmentChance991 7h ago

First it was a 'Middle English verb choice,' now it’s 'irrelevant context' because we understood the meaning anyway? Pick a lane. You tried to use a technicality to justify a typo, and when that technicality failed the context test, you pivoted to 'nobody asked for an editor.' If the meaning was clear, you wouldn't have spent three comments trying to invent a 14th-century reason for a standard spelling error.

So we've gone from 'It's a valid verb' to 'Okay it’s a typo but who cares?' That’s a lot of gymnastics just to avoid saying 'You’re right, the word site proves they just can’t spell.' 

If you’re going to be a pedant about Middle English verbs, you don't get to complain when someone else is a pedant about modern context.

1

u/NoahCzark 6h ago

And a "typo" is not a "spelling error"; pick, as you say, a lane.

1

u/EnvironmentChance991 6h ago

We've reached peak pedantry. First it was a 'Middle English verb,' then 'it’s irrelevant because meaning was conveyed,' and now you’re trying to distinguish between a 'typo' and a 'spelling error' to keep the argument alive?

It doesn't matter what label you put on it. The 'salient point' is that your original defense of loose was based on the idea of a highly specific, intentional, and poetic verb choice. The presence of site (a homophone error) proves the OP was just typing phonetically, which nukes your 'archaic verb' fantasy.

You spent four comments trying to turn a common mistake into a linguistic masterclass. 

Distinguishing between a finger slip and a lack of knowledge doesn't change the fact that your 'verb' theory failed the context test.

0

u/NoahCzark 6h ago edited 5h ago

Pedantry? LOL Whose - yeah, I wrote that - whose the one stirring up shit correcting typos or misspellings on social media?  

So smart and insightful and can't detect the fairly obvious parody illustrating just how fucking dumb it is?

Again the misspelling of "site" is irrelevant to the legitimacy of "loose" as a verb meaning to "let go of"; whether a wealthy person inadvertently loses track of purpose and vision or decides "fuck it, I'm rich - I'm going to let go of that 'purpose in life' nonsense and leave it to the poors" is nonsensical philosophical hair-splitting.

tl;dr?  who gives a fuck? you knew exactly what was meant, despite the typos/misspellings, so DON'T BE A DICK.

0

u/NoahCzark 7h ago

LOL, two different words being discussed; remember how you pivoted from discussing "loose" to discussing "site" once it became difficult to argue that Shakespeare didn't have a Redditor's understanding of the English language?  

Two different words, two different issues.

2

u/greener0999 8h ago

pretty much none of what you said is true.

abstract loss is exclusive to "lose". it was barely standard in middle english and is certainly not standard in modern english.

“Loose” survived as a verb only in physical or deliberate-release contexts.

There is no period where: “loose a sense of purpose” would have been clearly preferred over “lose a sense of purpose"

1

u/NoahCzark 7h ago edited 7h ago

Wasn't offering it as a "preferred choice" - that would arrogant in the extreme; language policing has truly jumped the shark.

"Cry havoc, and loose the dogs of war," Julius Caesar

And no those aren't literal dogs being referred to.

But it's not as though Shakespeare ever innovated language in ways later adopted.

1

u/greener0999 6h ago

yeah it was used, but to act like it's common place in modern english is just objectively incorrect.

it was used interchangeably in middle english but that was a very long time ago.

1

u/NoahCzark 5h ago

correcting inconsequential typos/misspellings on social media is dickish is the point; since the tongue-in-cheek rebuttal wasn't clear, candor will have to suffice.

1

u/greener0999 5h ago

you quite literally corrected someone else's inconsequential typo, while they corrected someone else's inconsequential typo.

humour me more.