Anonymous
03/27/2025 10:23
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unalive is also being used more frequently.
Hate, hate, hate this.
It's very Orwellian. It adds a totalitarian flare.
Anonymous
03/27/2025 10:13
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Unalive is also being used more frequently.
Hate, hate, hate this.
Anonymous
03/27/2025 09:44
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It's very correct. So correct and so regular, in fact, that Merriam-Webster lists it as a definition for the word disappear. Were you born yesterday?
DP here. I don’t object to disappear but this is hardly the gold standard. MW adds all kinds of made up words that enter the vernacular.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ginormous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rizz
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bae
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noob
There are tons more but you get the idea. Finding something “in the dictionary” is not the definitive proof it once was.
There isn't an English language standards body. The point of a dictionary is to document words and how they are used. If a word usage is common enough to make it into the dictionary, it stands to reason that a significantly large group is using it.
What you are looking for is a style guide.
I'm not "looking" for anything. I'm merely stating that arguing a word is "in the dictionary" is proof of absolutely nothing.
It's proof of documented and consistent usage. Are you suggesting we should only add words you think are important enough?
Anonymous
03/27/2025 09:40
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It's very correct. So correct and so regular, in fact, that Merriam-Webster lists it as a definition for the word disappear. Were you born yesterday?
DP here. I don’t object to disappear but this is hardly the gold standard. MW adds all kinds of made up words that enter the vernacular.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ginormous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rizz
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bae
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noob
There are tons more but you get the idea. Finding something “in the dictionary” is not the definitive proof it once was.
There isn't an English language standards body. The point of a dictionary is to document words and how they are used. If a word usage is common enough to make it into the dictionary, it stands to reason that a significantly large group is using it.
What you are looking for is a style guide.
I'm not "looking" for anything. I'm merely stating that arguing a word is "in the dictionary" is proof of absolutely nothing.
Anonymous
03/27/2025 08:44
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It's very correct. So correct and so regular, in fact, that Merriam-Webster lists it as a definition for the word disappear. Were you born yesterday?
DP here. I don’t object to disappear but this is hardly the gold standard. MW adds all kinds of made up words that enter the vernacular.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ginormous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rizz
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bae
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noob
There are tons more but you get the idea. Finding something “in the dictionary” is not the definitive proof it once was.
There isn't an English language standards body. The point of a dictionary is to document words and how they are used. If a word usage is common enough to make it into the dictionary, it stands to reason that a significantly large group is using it.
What you are looking for is a style guide.
Anonymous
03/27/2025 08:41
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It's very correct. So correct and so regular, in fact, that Merriam-Webster lists it as a definition for the word disappear. Were you born yesterday?
DP here. I don’t object to disappear but this is hardly the gold standard. MW adds all kinds of made up words that enter the vernacular.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ginormous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rizz
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bae
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noob
There are tons more but you get the idea. Finding something “in the dictionary” is not the definitive proof it once was.
I've got some shocking news for you about all words.
Anonymous
03/27/2025 08:40
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It's very correct. So correct and so regular, in fact, that Merriam-Webster lists it as a definition for the word disappear. Were you born yesterday?
DP here. I don’t object to disappear but this is hardly the gold standard. MW adds all kinds of made up words that enter the vernacular.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ginormous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rizz
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bae
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noob
There are tons more but you get the idea. Finding something “in the dictionary” is not the definitive proof it once was.
Anonymous
03/26/2025 21:57
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It's very correct. So correct and so regular, in fact, that Merriam-Webster lists it as a definition for the word disappear. Were you born yesterday?
Anonymous
03/26/2025 21:50
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:I have noticed a new syntax lately and don’t understand the origin or why the words are phrased this way. I’ve read it online mostly and notice it here on DCUM but in other places as well and even being used by people whom I know have advanced degrees and English is their first language. I find it happens mostly in political discussions. An example might be, “Larlo was just minding his own business when the boogie man disappeared him.” Can anyone shed some light on the origin of this?
Serious question: how old are you? This phrase has been used forever.
Anonymous
03/26/2025 21:03
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It’s no worse than “I was gifted this” or “he graduated from”
I say graduated from - Johnnie graduated from Harvard vs Johnnie graduated Harvard.
Am I wrong?
People have said it incorrectly for so long that it sounds right to them. But technically you didn’t graduate from a school. You WERE graduated FROM the school. As in the school was the doer. So the correct way to say it would be, “John was graduated from Harvard in 1950.”
successfully complete an academic degree, course of training, or high school.
"I graduated from West Point in 1965"
Similar:
qualify
pass one's exams
pass
be certified
be licensed
take an academic degree
receive/get one's degree
become a graduate
complete one's studies
informal•US
receive an academic degree from.
"she graduated college in 1970"
North American
confer a degree or other academic qualification on.
"the school graduated more than one hundred arts majors in its first year"
move up to (a more advanced level or position).
"he started with motorbikes but now he's graduated to his first car"
Yes. It’s allowed now because people said it incorrectly for so long it became language. Like “awful” or “ginormous” or “gifted.” If you read my original comment it was to state that “disappeared” was no worse than these other ones that are now “acceptable.”
If you read a wedding announcement from 40 years ago, you would not see “the groom graduated from” - you would see “the groom was graduated from”
40 years ago was 1985 and people were absolutely not saying "sally was graduated from" on a regular basis. Are you 125 yrs old? Because my great grandmother born in 1890 didn't say this in 1985.
NP. The PP mentioned wedding announcements, so I checked my in-laws 43 year old wedding announcement and that's what it said. Just a data point.
Responding to myself: my in-laws were 1981 and they each "were graduated from" but the same paper's announcements in 1985 say "graduated from." I guess, that's about when the switch hit that kind of formal writing.
Anonymous
03/26/2025 20:54
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It’s no worse than “I was gifted this” or “he graduated from”
I say graduated from - Johnnie graduated from Harvard vs Johnnie graduated Harvard.
Am I wrong?
People have said it incorrectly for so long that it sounds right to them. But technically you didn’t graduate from a school. You WERE graduated FROM the school. As in the school was the doer. So the correct way to say it would be, “John was graduated from Harvard in 1950.”
successfully complete an academic degree, course of training, or high school.
"I graduated from West Point in 1965"
Similar:
qualify
pass one's exams
pass
be certified
be licensed
take an academic degree
receive/get one's degree
become a graduate
complete one's studies
informal•US
receive an academic degree from.
"she graduated college in 1970"
North American
confer a degree or other academic qualification on.
"the school graduated more than one hundred arts majors in its first year"
move up to (a more advanced level or position).
"he started with motorbikes but now he's graduated to his first car"
Yes. It’s allowed now because people said it incorrectly for so long it became language. Like “awful” or “ginormous” or “gifted.” If you read my original comment it was to state that “disappeared” was no worse than these other ones that are now “acceptable.”
If you read a wedding announcement from 40 years ago, you would not see “the groom graduated from” - you would see “the groom was graduated from”
40 years ago was 1985 and people were absolutely not saying "sally was graduated from" on a regular basis. Are you 125 yrs old? Because my great grandmother born in 1890 didn't say this in 1985.
NP. The PP mentioned wedding announcements, so I checked my in-laws 43 year old wedding announcement and that's what it said. Just a data point.
Anonymous
03/26/2025 20:51
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It’s no worse than “I was gifted this” or “he graduated from”
I say graduated from - Johnnie graduated from Harvard vs Johnnie graduated Harvard.
Am I wrong?
People have said it incorrectly for so long that it sounds right to them. But technically you didn’t graduate from a school. You WERE graduated FROM the school. As in the school was the doer. So the correct way to say it would be, “John was graduated from Harvard in 1950.”
successfully complete an academic degree, course of training, or high school.
"I graduated from West Point in 1965"
Similar:
qualify
pass one's exams
pass
be certified
be licensed
take an academic degree
receive/get one's degree
become a graduate
complete one's studies
informal•US
receive an academic degree from.
"she graduated college in 1970"
North American
confer a degree or other academic qualification on.
"the school graduated more than one hundred arts majors in its first year"
move up to (a more advanced level or position).
"he started with motorbikes but now he's graduated to his first car"
Yes. It’s allowed now because people said it incorrectly for so long it became language. Like “awful” or “ginormous” or “gifted.” If you read my original comment it was to state that “disappeared” was no worse than these other ones that are now “acceptable.”
If you read a wedding announcement from 40 years ago, you would not see “the groom graduated from” - you would see “the groom was graduated from”
40 years ago was 1985 and people were absolutely not saying "sally was graduated from" on a regular basis. Are you 125 yrs old? Because my great grandmother born in 1890 didn't say this in 1985.
Anonymous
03/26/2025 20:41
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
The word was not commonly used here to describe things happening in the United States because we used to have the rule of law.
Anonymous
03/26/2025 09:39
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
I associate it with the regimes in Chile and Argentina in the 70s and 80s, and I've been hearing it that context as long as I've known about those events. U2's "Mothers of the Disappeared" came out in 1987.
This.
And if you can’t extrapolate why it’s become mainstream right now perhaps pull your head out of the sand.
Anonymous
03/26/2025 08:04
Subject: Odd new syntax with the word “disappear”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t new. You’re talking about using disappear as a transitive verb, which is usually reserved for describing people being killed/kidnapped like by a political regime. Not sure of the origin, though.
But it is grammatically incorrect. So when did it become mainstream?
It’s no worse than “I was gifted this” or “he graduated from”
I say graduated from - Johnnie graduated from Harvard vs Johnnie graduated Harvard.
Am I wrong?
People have said it incorrectly for so long that it sounds right to them. But technically you didn’t graduate from a school. You WERE graduated FROM the school. As in the school was the doer. So the correct way to say it would be, “John was graduated from Harvard in 1950.”
successfully complete an academic degree, course of training, or high school.
"I graduated from West Point in 1965"
Similar:
qualify
pass one's exams
pass
be certified
be licensed
take an academic degree
receive/get one's degree
become a graduate
complete one's studies
informal•US
receive an academic degree from.
"she graduated college in 1970"
North American
confer a degree or other academic qualification on.
"the school graduated more than one hundred arts majors in its first year"
move up to (a more advanced level or position).
"he started with motorbikes but now he's graduated to his first car"
Yes. It’s allowed now because people said it incorrectly for so long it became language. Like “awful” or “ginormous” or “gifted.” If you read my original comment it was to state that “disappeared” was no worse than these other ones that are now “acceptable.”
If you read a wedding announcement from 40 years ago, you would not see “the groom graduated from” - you would see “the groom was graduated from”