It is still very clear to me that those of us who want to communicate with precision, those of us who want to be understood, need to have a word which implies fraud. To me, "rip-off" is that word. If others choose to use it to mean expensive or to mean a unicorn, then they are abusing the word...
I assume that everyone agrees that the expression "rip-off" includes the meaning of fraud. Fraud is a crime. It is morally reprehensible. So it is wrong to extend the meaning of a "criminal" word to something which does not involve fraud or crime. ....
If someone tells me that Pub X is a rip-off, I will assume that they have been charged more than the prices on display or that they have been intentionally short-changed and I will think less of the pub as a result. If someone tells me that Cafe en Seine manages to have people queuing up outside to pay €6 a pint, I will admire the pub for its marketing savvy. ...
If people insist on extending "rip-off" to mean expensive, they should clarify that they are using this new meaning of the word. Otherwise, those of us who understand the true meaning of the word will have to ask them to clarify what they mean. This interferes with clear communication.
Brendan
I thought that it was one of the characters (The [Mad] Hatter or The Queen of Hearts perhaps?) from Alice in Wonderland? Are you sure that you're not ripping off Lewis Carroll through misattribution of the phrase?Humpty Dumpty said something along the following lines: "A word means what I choose it to mean - no more and no less".
Bankrupt potter means reverse forward "rip-off". Snow cannot warm Humpty Dumpty. Minority splash the rules? An infinite number of "kangaroos" Unicorn says so, it must be wrong. Clarity of meaningless helps the printer.
I thought that it was one of the characters (The [Mad] Hatter or The Queen of Hearts perhaps?) from Alice in Wonderland? Are you sure that you're not ripping off Lewis Carroll through misattribution of the phrase?
Don't you mean 'the manner and context in which it is defined'?
Why do you insist on using an imprecise word? Does it matter that the majority of users express themselves badly? Why do you not try to articulate yourself well?
If someones says to me that a place is a rip-off, I will have to continue to ask them which version of the word they are using. It would be much simpler and would give rise to much fewer misunderstandings, if they used "rip-off" to convey fraud and "exceedingly expensive" to mean, well, exceedingly expensive.
The dictionary definitions do reflect the misuse of the word. Perhaps the OED will follow suit shortly. That will not reduce the misunderstandings caused by your insistence on using a word to mean two different things, one of which is criminal in nature and the other of which is not.
The slang argument is somewhat facile in my opinion. Street slang often appropriates words to mean the opposite of what they mean conventionally and to to most people. For example - "bad" to mean "good". Does this mean that we should, as a matter of course, accept both contradictory meaings?
Ah, come on Brendan! The word is certainly imprecise - the vast majority of words are. So why do you insist on using it? Why don't you just say 'fraud' instead of ripoff, if that's what you mean. Does it not matter that many listeners will think you are referring to high prices or being taken advantage of/exploited, when that's not what you mean at all? Why do you not try to articulate yourself well?Why do you insist on using an imprecise word? Does it matter that the majority of users express themselves badly? Why do you not try to articulate yourself well?
If someones says to me that a place is a rip-off, I will have to continue to ask them which version of the word they are using, or maybe I'll just be able to take the meaning from the context in which it's used. It would be much simpler and would give rise to much fewer misunderstandings, if they used "rip-off" to convey exceedingly expensive and "fraud" to mean, well, fraud.If someones says to me that a place is a rip-off, I will have to continue to ask them which version of the word they are using. It would be much simpler and would give rise to much fewer misunderstandings, if they used "rip-off" to convey fraud and "exceedingly expensive" to mean, well, exceedingly expensive.
No, just its evolving use.The dictionary definitions do reflect the misuse of the word.
I've got the OED 2nd edn (1989) entry for rip-off in front of me now. This is what it says:Perhaps the OED will follow suit shortly.
How many misunderstandings of this kind actually occur? It seems to me that the majority of people, in the majority of cases, are capable of determining from the context whether someone using the word ripoff means fraud or excessively/exploitatively expensive. In fact, I can't think of a single discussion here on AAM where someone has said, "I'm confused... Do you mean fraud or excessively expensive?" On the contrary, most discussions have included something along the lines of:That will not reduce the misunderstandings caused by your insistence on using a word to mean two different things, one of which is criminal in nature and the other of which is not.
Don't forget you're voting on what the word means, rather than how you personally use it.Ripoff:
A - Has one acceptable meaning only, i.e. someone tries to charge a higher price than advertised/stated for an item. A high price can not be a ripoff unless the item in question has been fraudulently advertised at a lower price.
B - Has two meanings only, i.e. a fraudulent price (as in A above), and a standard, non-flight-enabled, white unicorn.
C - Has multiple meanings, including an unreasonably high price.
D - Other (please specify).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?