this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
792 points (97.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

6509 readers
3942 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Thank you. I'm so sick of people jumping on 'oh language changes over time' when others are just using words wrong.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

I mean you're half right. If enough people start using it wrong then it becomes a legitimate thing. It's kind of like our currency system.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I'd say it isn't wrong, per se; english, especially american english has a long history of 'verbing' nouns...

... But at least in this case, it is less precise and more cumbersome than not using slang.

That and of course, if you've never seen or heard it used this way, it is confusing.

So... not wrong... but not useful, concise, or efficient.

You could use a verb that just directly connects the subject to the object, but when you take an adjective and 'verbify' it, now you have to construct a phrase to do that... and it still results in a more passive voicing.

Its only more succinct if the sentence has no specified object, no thing that the verb is acting on.

I'm vagueing.

You're vagueing.

They're vagueing.

...etc.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's less archaic if you're familiar with the term "vague posting", meaning to post something specifically about someone but not to mention them by name (but usually enough information for those who know both parties to know who the post is about).

Seems like it's been shortened to just the first word.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I don't think archaic is the word you mean... as the use of vagueing as a verb is fairly new, not fairly old.

Archaic would be like... betwixt, hither, goodly, plain (meaning not very attractive), anon (meaning immediately), methinks...

... words that once were commonly used, but have much more widely used modern replacements.

Anyway, yes I'm familiar with the term vague posting, and I agree that it is a very likely etymological antecedent of vagueing.

Doesn't change that vagueing as a verb is more clumsy to use in a sentence which intends to specify an object.

Both vague posting and vagueing work well to describe the actions of only a subject, but yeah, they are more awkward to use when you want to specify an object of the vague posting or vagueing.

They can't be conjugated on their own, to do that requires helper words, auxilliary verbs.

On their own, they are always in the continuous tense.

... Though I guess you could say vagues, vagued, vagueing...

... but at that point I'd argue the connection to communicating in online posts is lost, and it would begin to apply to any kind of communication where a person is being vague, losing the specificity of 'it's not vague to those with insider/first-hand knowledge'.