I wonder if you will be interested in what ("that which"?!) I have written here. Of course, by interested I mean curious or attentive. I do not imagine that you will be influenced by considerations of personal advantage. I would hope that the intended sense of the word is clear from the context.
A more interesting question arises. (More interesting to me, at least.) What if you are not interested (i.e. incurious)? Would you then be uninterested or disinterested? Do you believe that either prefix will suffice? Or do you discriminate between these two words?
Perhaps you think I am rambling? Let me first explain that the word interested has at least two distinct meanings: 1. feeling curiosity or sympathy. 2. having self-interest. The two words above are opposites of the word interested. But do they mean the same thing?
Here are the relevant definitions from the OED:
It should be apparent that disinterested is used to mean impartial rather than unconcerned. This rule provides us with a useful distinction: it removes a particular ambiguity inherent in the root word interest.
I will summarise for those who skimmed the above. Uninterested means not feeling curiosity/concern. Disinterested means not having self-interest. We have two different words with two distinct meanings. They are both opposites, but of different concepts.
Now you might be forgiven for thinking that lexicographer is using weasel words. We encounter the phrases "Often regarded as a loose use" and "widely regarded as incorrect". So clearly not every English speaker adheres to these definitions. But what percentage of the population thinks it important? Are there regional/dialectical differences? Will ignorance of the prevailing standard be mocked by the literati? Of course, the answers to these questions are difficult to quantify and will change over time (as does the English language). However, one presumes there is a certain degree of confidence behind the assertion.
A dictionary is generally descriptivist in approach. Its purpose is to tell you what a speaker/writer might intend to convey. Value judgements are (necessarily) avoided. To discover what is considered to be standard or good form, we shall consult various style guides:
In Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third Edition), R. W. Burchfield writes:
The Elements of Style (4th Edition):
The BBC News Style Guide:
The Times Online Style Guide:
You'll find the same prescriptions made by The Guardian, The Chicago Manual of Style, The New York Times Manual, etc. In fact, I challenge you to find an authority that does not describe this semantic distinction. So it seems that all modern references are in agreement. (A possible dissenter is Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage but I don't have access to the full text.)
Yet (inevitably?) we find examples where opinion differs; challenging or even denying the status quo. In this interesting article, Mark Liberman quotes a contributor who thinks that someone who "pretends there's a difference" is one of the "usual collection of nutters". Liberman himself earlier stated that the disinterested/uninterested distinction is "a situation that never existed."
In part 2 I will delve a little further and determine if there are any valid arguments if favour of using disinterested and uninterested interchangeably.
A more interesting question arises. (More interesting to me, at least.) What if you are not interested (i.e. incurious)? Would you then be uninterested or disinterested? Do you believe that either prefix will suffice? Or do you discriminate between these two words?
Perhaps you think I am rambling? Let me first explain that the word interested has at least two distinct meanings: 1. feeling curiosity or sympathy. 2. having self-interest. The two words above are opposites of the word interested. But do they mean the same thing?
Here are the relevant definitions from the OED:
uninterested, ppl. a.
1. Unbiassed, impartial. Obs.
2. Free from motives of personal interest; disinterested. Obs.
3. Unconcerned, indifferent. In this sense disinterested is increasingly common in informal use, though widely regarded as incorrect: see disinterested ppl. a. 1.
disinterested, ppl. a.
1. Without interest or concern; not interested, unconcerned. (Often regarded as a loose use.)
2. Not influenced by interest; impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced; now always, Unbiased by personal interest; free from self-seeking. (Of persons, or their dispositions, actions, etc.)
It should be apparent that disinterested is used to mean impartial rather than unconcerned. This rule provides us with a useful distinction: it removes a particular ambiguity inherent in the root word interest.
I will summarise for those who skimmed the above. Uninterested means not feeling curiosity/concern. Disinterested means not having self-interest. We have two different words with two distinct meanings. They are both opposites, but of different concepts.
Now you might be forgiven for thinking that lexicographer is using weasel words. We encounter the phrases "Often regarded as a loose use" and "widely regarded as incorrect". So clearly not every English speaker adheres to these definitions. But what percentage of the population thinks it important? Are there regional/dialectical differences? Will ignorance of the prevailing standard be mocked by the literati? Of course, the answers to these questions are difficult to quantify and will change over time (as does the English language). However, one presumes there is a certain degree of confidence behind the assertion.
A dictionary is generally descriptivist in approach. Its purpose is to tell you what a speaker/writer might intend to convey. Value judgements are (necessarily) avoided. To discover what is considered to be standard or good form, we shall consult various style guides:
In Fowler's Modern English Usage (Third Edition), R. W. Burchfield writes:
My personal use and recommendation is to restrict disinterested to its sense of impartial, at any rate for the present.
The Elements of Style (4th Edition):
Disinterested. Means "impartial." Do not confuse it with uninterested, which means "not interested in."
The BBC News Style Guide:
Disinterested means impartial; uninterested means not interested in.
The Times Online Style Guide:
disinterested means impartial, unbiased (noun disinterest); never confuse with uninterested, which means having a lack of interest
You'll find the same prescriptions made by The Guardian, The Chicago Manual of Style, The New York Times Manual, etc. In fact, I challenge you to find an authority that does not describe this semantic distinction. So it seems that all modern references are in agreement. (A possible dissenter is Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage but I don't have access to the full text.)
Yet (inevitably?) we find examples where opinion differs; challenging or even denying the status quo. In this interesting article, Mark Liberman quotes a contributor who thinks that someone who "pretends there's a difference" is one of the "usual collection of nutters". Liberman himself earlier stated that the disinterested/uninterested distinction is "a situation that never existed."
In part 2 I will delve a little further and determine if there are any valid arguments if favour of using disinterested and uninterested interchangeably.
Comments