‘Reticent’ vs. ‘Reluctant’
Posted by alex in Alex Linder, language at 7:59 am | 
Permanent Link
One of the pleasures of the Internet is the chance to horsewhip dumb twats like Debbie Schlussel. An even greater pleasure is to lecture morons on proper English. It’s the intellectual equivalent of jerking off, since a world that ill notes the diff twixt possess’ and plural is hardly capable of anything finer. But let’s jerk away anyhow. My bugaboo is the difference between ‘reticence’ and ‘reluctance.’ ‘Reticence’ is the dolt flavor-o’-the-fiveyear. It used to be ‘facetious,’ still heard now and then, but faded. Here’s the New York Times perpetrating the error. But reticence by some big media companies is making room for independent programmers to explore all sorts of niches. The proper word is ‘reluctance’ or lack of interest or reservations or refusal, not ‘reticence.’ Reticence refers not to a transitory disposition but a trait. If I don’t want to do something, you can’t express that by saying I’m shy or secretive. Read the definitions here and here.
Now, you’ll see that the second definition of ‘reticence’ is the first definition of ‘reluctance’ – unwillingness. “Aha!” you say, “you’re an idiot.” Perhaps you’re right, but you can’t prove it by this example, for I strongly suspect, without being absolutely sure, that ‘reticent’ only recently acquired its second meaning, through the iron law of misuse, i.e., “there is no law save usage,” in precisely the same way that ‘enormity‘ now means huge, instead of outrageous crime. Using terms interchangeably or indiscriminately is unAryan. Don’t do it.
14 March, 2006 at 8:39 am
Well, the Jews sit atop our cultural institutions. What should they care about our language?
Think about this from Truman Capote and his observation on the Jew takeover of the literary scene, Jews are,
“clique of New York-oriented writers and critics who control much of the literary scene through the influence of…Jewish dominatedâ€? publications and who “make or breakâ€? careers in letters by bestowing or rewarding attention.”
14 March, 2006 at 9:03 am
They do care about language – they use it to degrade their opponents, and debase their society, not least by dumbing it down.
Making distinctions and associations is thought, and thought is anti-semitic. Tools that aid thought – knowledge of facts, skill in reasoning – these are denied public school prisoners, just the way slaves were denied the chance to learn how to read. The jews have gone a step farther than the slaveowners of old – they teach reading by a way that frustrates the student, thereby ensuring he’ll hate reading. Reading aversion therapy is good for jews, bad for us.
14 March, 2006 at 9:06 am
“clique of New York-oriented writers and critics who control much of the literary scene through the influence of…Jewish dominated� publications and who “make or break� careers in letters by bestowing or rewarding attention.�
It’s not just writers jews can make or break, it’s terms and arguments – frames. For example, there is no word to express the genocidal hate jews exhibit toward Whites. Until we came up with loxism. That does not mean that hate does not exist, any more than the writers the jews won’t publish are any less valid than the jews they do.
Anyone who argues against the jew’s agenda is a “hater.” No jew ever, anywhere is admitted to be driven by anything but love of all mankind – humankind!
As Orwell realized, the totalitarians work to simplify things into two categories: bad and good. What favors the tyrants is good, what hurts or opposes them is bad. Adjectives expressing degrees or nuances are eliminated.
14 March, 2006 at 12:04 pm
What a crock. Shakespeare even went so far as to invented his own words. Once we get rid of the jews, remember to keep this kind of stuff for the school ma’ms, but when the men and women come on, hands off. We don’t need your chains anymore than we need the jews’ chains, nor do Aryans need you telling us what is Aryan and what is not.
We can figure it out for ourselves. That is what freedom is you tosser. :)
And as for totalitarians working to ultra-plus-plus-contextualize things, so too those who would be an impediment to the evolution of our language. Out with you! Out of our holy temple!
Bring me my whip boy! Ole “RitaSent”, the meanest ass licker in the West!
14 March, 2006 at 12:10 pm
And the correct phrase is “correct English”, and not “proper English” as you have so abused it. :p
14 March, 2006 at 3:41 pm
“Proper English” isn’t a phrase, as you have abused it.
I don’t object to new words, I object to the abuse of existing ones and the malicious simplification behind the jewframes imposed on the non-major-media-owning public.
14 March, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Keep it up Alex.
My pet peeve is the often mis-pronounced word: forte
As a word to describe a strong ability or skill, it is pronounced: “FORT”, not “FORTAY”. “FORTAY” is another word, spelled the same, but meaning a loud passage in music, etc. Different roots. Alas, some dictionaries now acknowledge the artsy-fartsies who had to say it wrong three times a day a decade or four ago.
14 March, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Sorry Alex, you are correct in that “proper English” is not a phrase, but “correct English” is a phrase, a Noun Phrase. So you are wrong about me abusing the word. It is okay. I don’t require an apology. The joy of spreading knowledge is enough for me. :)
15 March, 2006 at 10:29 am
I don’t think I’ve seen the proper distinction made for “between” and “among” in the last sixteen years worth of print media.
“Between” is used when descrbing relations of two individuals, groups, or parties:
As a rule, Paypal ignores proprieties in remittance matters between itself and white nationalist websites.
“Among” is used for relations of more than two individuals, groups, or parties:
White nationalists would benefit from a united front between their individual groups and their ZOG-backed adversaries. However, treachery and distrust among these groups, and even among members within a single organization, preclude concerted efforts.
Nowadays, “between” is the all-purpose word.
16 March, 2006 at 12:27 am
Most irritating is the dropping of him for them or his for their. Almost standard these days. I also dont’ like the English use of collective instead of singular for group, team, audience, but this way has come to dominate.
16 March, 2006 at 6:09 am
I would comment, but I have always been reluctant, probably because I stuttered as a child.
16 March, 2006 at 8:07 pm
In addition, “disrespect” is a noun, not a verb.