I was interested - not to say shocked and distressed - just now to hear "disinterest" used on a BBC Radio 4 trailer as if it meant "uninterest", which to my mind it clearly does not.
The choice was no doubt influenced by the sequence of "disgust" and "dis- I forget what" in the phrase and I can understand that a tired presenter might make such a slip, but to me it seems unforgivable in a pre-planned trailer. One would think that someone in the BBC would have noticed it before broadcast and that the phones would have been red-hot since.
The "dis"/ "un" interested distinction is just the kind that we need to preserve as it allows the convenient and economical distinguishing of two related ideas.
However, I was surprised to see that the Concise OED on my desk allows:
Disinterest, noun, 1. disputed, lack of interest, unconcern; 2. impartiality
The usage note says:
The use of disinterested in sense 1 to mean 'lack of interest' is sometimes objected to, but it is in this sense that it is most commonly found and the alternative uninterest is rare. The phrase lack of interest avaoids both ambiguity and accusations of incorrect usage.
Even a lack of interest need not be unambiguos, as in the phrase, "he lacked (an / any) interest in Sky Television": does he not wish to watch it or does he not own shares in it?
Clearly usage determines meaning but this is a usage up with which we should not put.
Posts
1 comment:
OED's point is well made though that uninterest as a noun is very rare - indeed I'm not sure I would use it. However, as adjectives, I agree the uninterested/disinterested distinction is very useful, rather like immoral/amoral.
Post a Comment