Ive long been musing on the erosion of the distinction between disinterested and uninterested. Today I find myself wondering if future philologists (presuming their continued existence, which is, I know, a tremendous presumption) will simply assume that this erosion of distinction marked a loss of interest in (and therefore willingness to characterize) the distinction. These days, after all, few people in positions of power would think lack of financial interest in the outcome of any issue should be acknowledged with an adjective all its own. But the future philologists (if there are any!) would be wrong, of course. Its just one of those curious coincidences. The erosion of the distinction isl, Im sure, just a reflection of a popular usage that presumes that certain words are more upmarket than others theyve taken as having identical meanings. Such usage means, of course, that eventually they do have identical meanings. As has recently become the case with disinterested and uninterested, which theres no point in continuing to contest. But that doesnt mean that I dont still regret the erosion in a useful distinction.
Posted on: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 21:11:27 +0000