That's because that definition is wrong. "Take" is short for "takeaway" - a view, conclusion, or inspiration that the listener gets from hearing something. The etymology is pretty well documented.Originally Posted by Deathhappens
In usual fashion, though, the Twitteratti get the concept wrong and misuse the term (like 'literally').
So...RWBY?
Binged All Of Gundam In 4 Years, 1 Week and All I Got Was This Stupid Mask
FF XIV: Walked to the End
Started Legend of the Galactic Heroes (14/07/23), pray for me.
It's not hard to imagine how the term slowly changed definitions because the word began to be used to describe the takeaway the author wanted the audience to get, and then it began to describe the argument that was being presented. Language just changes over time, nothing wrong with that.
- - - Updated - - -
Some of that is still present in later Bleach, but it's definitely overtaken by the Japanese Spirit that the manga seems to run on.
Also, I should look into Red Hood, then.
Let's just say that if you like Barghest's design, you'll LOVE the character designs in Red Hood.
“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." -- Sir Humpty Dumpty, Esq.
I'm still not sure where the premise is going, but then I only read the first three chapters when they were out. I need to catch up.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
Sorry, but that's just how language works, on a larger scale. Words mean what the people using them decide they mean, and whose definitions you trust is more a matter of who you think holds authority over our words. Of course, that doesn't mean we ignore precedent on how words were used or existing definitions, but we shouldn't just dismiss changes in meaning as a word being used "wrong". That's more than a bit elitist.
- - - Updated - - -
Binged Red Hood, and yes, I am liking it thus far, and as for art, the bit that stood out to me is the Cecil Rhodes imitation panel. I am so glad that guy got whooped and all his employees defected over for a more equal partnership. What an amazing rejection of capitalist logic.
No, you are just using the word wrong. It's okay to admit you didn't actually have the meaning correct, you know. Trying to wax philosophical about linguistics when you don't even know the etymology in the first place is just silly.
No, not really, since the noun we're using is defined in Merriam-Webster as "a distinct or personal point of view, outlook, or assessment", which covers both ways we have used it. Of course, dictionary definitions, at least in English, only really record the consensus definition of words anyway.
I kinda got that it was less that and more 'Hey let's work with people that WON'T threaten us with violence to cooperate'.
That is an accurate reading, but it's also true that most capitalist relationships and contracts are built on some coercion and violence, even if that violence isn't always physical. Mosco is a hyper capitalist in every way, and he brought his employees under heel both through his greater physical power and with the promise of monetary compensation once he subdued them. It's very much like how actual employer-employee relations work, except with usually not as much physical violence. Merrio calmly rejects that logic and lets the erstwhile employees join him after taking down the boss not with any promise of monetary compensation, but rather with the promise that so long as they have each other's backs, they'll all pass. This is actual free association and an equal contract made.
That too yea.
As amusing as it was to see you counter a mention of etymology be mentioning that words change meaning over time, I'm glad you finally looked up the word - although unsurprised you continue to misunderstand it.
The word's meaning is your point of view or assessment of something else, not the author's message. Each person has their own take on a story or event. In other words, it means the exact opposite of what you claimed: that the 'take' was the message pushed by the author - nowhere in there is that idea supplied. MW's own example demonstrates that, and other dictionaries make it even more plain.
Seriously, the etymology is simple:
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the phrase "take away" was used in the UK to refer to food taken away from a restaurant - what Americans refer to as carry-out.
In the 1920s, it began to be written as one word, take-away or takeaway.
During WWII, the figurative usage was picked up by Americans stationed in the UK, to refer to non-corporeal things taken away from a meeting or gathering.
By the 1960s, this usage had transferred back to the US business and military cultures.
In the late 1980s, the shortened form of just 'take' was in use, and it became more common in the 2000s.
Nowhere in there was the idea that 'take' referred identical somethings pushed out from a central source - it was, always from the beginning, an idea of individuals acquiring their own thing.
At least, unless you want to claim the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology is wrong and you are right? I'll admit, my copy is about 10 years old - maybe your copy is more recent and you can tell me how the professionals have concluded that the word now has the opposite meaning? Until then, the consensus is squarely against you, however much you don't want to admit it. No matter how much you complain, you will not become correct, and 2+2 will never equal 22.
I mean, this whole thing about etymology just proves my point that a word's definition can and does change meaning over time depending on who uses it and in what context, but it's silly to think the word can't change more and that it's fossilized in its current form. Also, the way I use it is not far from how you use it since it simply refers to an author's perspective on certain issues and ideas through the medium of their work. A take isn't exclusive to consumers of a work, but also the producer, since they are giving their take on issues that matter to them via their creative works. I don't see your problem here, except that you think that language has stopped evolving in the present and will stay the way it is forever even when that's patently false.
What the Strugatskys were really missing from their story was gay girls, and that's the most important thing.
<NEW FIC!> Revolution #9: Somewhere out there, there's a universe in which your mistakes and failures never happened, and all you wished for is true. How hard would you fight to make that real?
[11:20:46 AM] GlowStiks: lucina is supes attractive
[12:40] Lace: lucina is amazing
[12:40] Neir: lucina is pretty much flawless
Isekai Shokudo done. Nice relaxing show. It does it's job well. Nothing special, but a nice watch still. I like how it builds it's world and lore through the perspectives of the different characters and their interactions. Looking foward to S2
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
DINO GETTER,FUCK YESS
Spoiler:
You didn't even know what the word 'etymology' meant at the beginning of the thread, and now you are trying to lecture me on it? Misusing a word does not mean that the word's meaning has changed, it just means you misused the word.
A lesson for you: Even though they sound the same, people that use "your" instead of "you're" are not at the forefront of linguistic evolution - they're just wrong.
Even though it happens disturbingly often, people that use "literally" to mean "figuratively" are not at the forefront of linguistic evolution - they're just wrong.
And people that use "take" to mean the message pushed by an author instead of the opinion of the reader are not at the forefront of linguistic evolution - they're just wrong.
When did I ever indicate I didn't know what etymology meant? I have no idea how you got that. As for your "literally" bugbear, you are literally wrong about the use of literally as a figurative intensifier/hyperbole. It's been done since at least Shakespeare, and the move against it was thanks to Ambrose Bierce saying he thought that was bad writing.
Entertaining as this has been, this is really starting to stretch "on-topic discussion" in this thread, guys.
shit BL says
Once and always and nevermore.
I tried watching Bleach one time, long ago. Got about 80 episodes in until I said enough, and that the Bount arc was fucking shit. But it had such a good premise in the beginning, with such great potential. I wish Tite Kubo would just take the reins of a series as an artist and maybe a concept creator, because if there's one thing he's good at is drawing cool characters looking cool in fights. On god though, never let him handle anything else, it'll turn to shit faster than a Daybit thread.
Call me 想φαγω.
Spoiler:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
