this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
79 points (89.9% liked)

Off My Chest

837 readers
160 users here now

RULES:


I am looking for mods!


1. The "good" part of our community means we are pro-empathy and anti-harassment. However, we don't intend to make this a "safe space" where everyone has to be a saint. Sh*t happens, and life is messy. That's why we get things off our chests.

2. Bigotry is not allowed. That includes racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and religiophobia. (If you want to vent about religion, that's fine; but religion is not inherently evil.)

3. Frustrated, venting, or angry posts are still welcome.

4. Posts and comments that bait, threaten, or incite harassment are not allowed.

5. If anyone offers mental, medical, or professional advice here, please remember to take it with a grain of salt. Seek out real professionals if needed.

6. Please put NSFW behind NSFW tags.


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I've seen "let alone" used on Lemmy a good number of times now and, at least when I noticed it, it was always used incorrectly. It's come to a point where I still feel like I'm being gaslit even after looking up examples, just because of the sheer amount of times I've seen it used outright wrong.

What I'm talking about is people switching up the first and last part. In "X, let alone Y" Y is supposed to be the more extreme case, the one that is less likely to happen, or could only happen if X also did first.

The correct usage: "That spaghetti must have been months old. I did not even open the box, let alone eat it."

How I see it used constantly: "That spaghetti must have been months old. I did not eat it, let alone open the box."

Other wrong usage: "Nobody checks out books anymore, let alone visits the library."

Why does this bug me so much? I don't know. One reason I came up with is that it's boring. The "wrong" way the excitement always ramps down with the second sentence, so why even include it?

I am prepared to be shouted down for still somehow being incorrect about this. Do your worst. At least I'll know I keep shifting between dimensions where "let alone" is always used differently or something.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

In "X, let alone Y" Y is supposed to be the more extreme case, the one that is less likely to happen, or could only happen if X also did first

Other wrong usage: "Nobody checks out books anymore, let alone visits the library."

X = "Nobody checks out books anymore": less extreme. People could go to be going to the library and choosing to read books there.

Y = "let alone visits the library": more extreme. People don't even go to the library, so they wouldn't be able to check out books even if they wanted to.

Why is that usage not correct? According to you definition, it should be. We it the other way around, then it would be wrong (according to your definition).

Please explain.

[–] RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You are getting confused because you are comparing negations. It's "visiting the library" that is less extreme than "checking out a book".

This is also more of an example of dependency rather than extremity. That is, "checking out a book" could only happen if "visiting the library" happened first. So you could say "I never even travelled to North Korea, let alone bought a souvenir there" -- while buying a souvenir is small compared to travelling to NK, the travelling would have to happen first, so the phrase makes sense.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

This is not confusion, but a different view point, just like 6 is 9.

In the previous example with the library, at least people are still reading books in a library. One should be happy that the library is being used. However, if people don't even go to a library, that is more extreme because its existence will be futile.

"I've never bought a souvenir in North Korea, let alone traveled there." is just another way to phrase the same fact from a different view point. Buying souvenirs is trivial and it would be trivial, if I had ever been to North Korea, and since I haven't, it's the more extreme of the two.

Do you understand now?

[–] kabi@lemm.ee 7 points 3 hours ago

or could only happen if X also did first.

You can't check out a book if you don't go to the library. What I mean by more extreme is this, that it requires the first one as a prior condition, or is otherwise asserted to be less likely to happen.

My on the spot made up definition may not have been the clearest :)