I would like you to ask an English teacher whether or not you used that word properly. The point of language is to communicate, and using words however you want to use them doesn't work. "Incredulous" is an adjective that didn't even work in conjunction with that sentence, regardless of its definition.

Oh man. Just to make sure I wasn't blowing smoke (because, when you are in a debate, that is something worth doing- fact checking) I checked a dictionary. The Heinemann English Dictionary even states in big letters, "DO NOT CONFUSE INCREDULOUS FOR INCREDIBLE." 

They're not interchangeable. You say you know they aren't synonyms, but neither are they the same KIND of adjective.

Incredible vs. incredulous

Incredible means difficult to believe. Incredulous means unwilling or unable to believe. So something that is difficult to believe is incredible, and if you have trouble believing something, you are incredulous.

These adjectives were once variants of each other, but they diverged a few centuries ago, and now they are no longer considered interchangeable. They are still occasionally mixed up, but many readers will consider this an error.

I’ve heard the word incredulous attributed to situations, as in That’s an incredulous story. The problem is that incredulous means skeptical or disbelieving, which is a human trait, not something that can be attributed to an inanimate object, a theory, or a situation. I was incredulous of his story (I was skeptical of his story) is the correct use of incredulous.

Incredible means not to be believed, as in That’s an incredible story (a story that’s difficult to believe).

Here are other examples:

He looked at me with an incredulous stare. (a stare of skepticism)
I was incredulous of his request. (disbelieving of his request)
The details of his excuse were incredible. (the details were unbelievable)
Oh, I can hear it now: Didn’t Shakespeare use incredible to mean incredulous at some point in his writings? Ergo, doesn’t that mean that incredible and incredulous are synonymous?

In a word—-no. And considering the common belief by scholars that he had a very limited education, it shouldn’t be surprising. Shakespeare may have written some insightful works (then again, the works attributed to him may have actually been written by someone else—-the jury is still out on that one, much like the hotly debated Great taste! Less filling! Miller Lite controversy), but that doesn’t necessitate a perfect command of vocabulary and an absolute deference to his grammar skills. None of us can boast such perfection, and, really, who would want to? It’s too much of a burden.

Posted by dahsdebater on 9/17/2013 3:22:00 PM (view original):
I think I've made my point here.

Still want to dispute this?

It's happened a number of times, your just too self-important to recognize it...

No, I just live in the real world. You appear to live in a fantasy land where you think you can decree someone wrong and that makes it so.

Back here in the real world, each time you think you've proven me wrong, I've shown exactly how you haven't.

Then instead of addressing what I've said, you ignore it, launch your denial, and sink back into your fantasy land where whatever you say goes.

I would like you to ask an English teacher whether or not you used that word properly.

Wow this made me laugh because I actually *DID* just that.  I was recently speaking with someone who is a high school English teacher and I inquired as to the use of "incredulous" versus "incredible". I explained why I used the word the way I did.

Guess what? She agreed it was better to attempt to avoid miscommunication through possible connotations of the word "incredible" than to be technically correct by using it.

Then again, I didn't mention to her that it was likely a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario whereby some people who have nothing better to do than try to prove me wrong would probably say I was wrong either way.

The point of language is to communicate, and using words however you want to use them doesn't work. "Incredulous" is an adjective that didn't even work in conjunction with that sentence, regardless of its definition.

We've moved past this point. I already gave the grammatical analysis of  how it DID work in that sentence. You can't keep declaring otherwise without backing it up, and to do that you have to address what I already said. So either do that or drop it.

I checked a dictionary. The Heinemann English Dictionary even states in big letters, "DO NOT CONFUSE INCREDULOUS FOR INCREDIBLE."

Yes, and again, we've already moved past this. I already explained why I deliberately chose to ignore this rule and how you are being a stickler for the rule just to try to prove me wrong - but it's not happening here unless you've got something new to present, and this isn't new.

They're not interchangeable. You say you know they aren't synonyms, but neither are they the same KIND of adjective.

The point is that the sentence worked to communicate the meaning to anyone with even a moderate knowledge of the English language. The only people who are even arguing this point are those with an axe to grind to prove me wrong, which further cements your position as being ridiculous.

Still want to dispute this?

Absolutely.

The word was used in a technically incorrect manner for a deliberate purpose, which was served to everyone who doesn't have an axe to grind in a ridiculous quest to prove me wrong.

This is getting old so unless someone can provide something new, I won't be entertaining your little crusade to prove me wrong, because you've failed.

So you're admitting that you used the word incorrectly?

So you're admitting that you used the word incorrectly?

What did I say?

The word was used in a technically incorrect manner for a deliberate purpose, which was served quite well.

The problem several people are having here is that they are trying to make this into a "black and white" issue when that doesn't work. Yet they keep hammering on with it because they are on a ridiculous crusade to prove me wrong.

I did what I did on purpose for a specific reason, which means I'm not wrong, so get over yourselves and realize your quest is doomed to fail.

Posted by bistiza on 9/13/2013 9:06:00 AM (view original):
It's amazing how often after I call someone out for their ridiculous behavior, they attempt to try to twist something I've said to claim I'm doing the same thing. You're not different here.

There is no arrogance involved in any of the situations you mention, especially considering you have changed the meaning of what I said into something it isn't.

I said I will not change my mind on my opinions unless someone can present new information (NOT because I "had thought about them" - that's you twisting things).

I said specific individuals were sheep because their only defense for certain opinions they expressed was because other people told them it was so and it happens to be the popular opinion at the time (NOT "everyone else is a sheep" - that's you twisting things).

None of those things was said out of any kind of sense of arrogance. It fits your agenda to read arrogance into those things so you can try to tell me I'm just like you, but the fact is it doesn't exist and I'm nothing like you.

I don't talk down to people like you do. In fact, I defend people against your arrogance, and have done so on a number of occasions.

This little grammar spat is yet another instance of your arrogance on display. Everyone has to use every word in the context you see fit or you need to correct them.

You want to talk grammar? Fine. The word "incredulous" is an adjective, which in this case was used in reference to the pronoun "it", which was substituted to mean the general situation or circumstance, i.e. it is raining outside.  Adjectives can and do modify pronouns. You are simply used to adjectives (and this particular adjective) describing nouns, i.e. his behavior was incredulous.

If we reinsert the noun and its accompanying article ("the situation") in place of the pronoun I used instead ("it"), the sentence still makes sense, as follows:

Sometimes I just find the situation so incredulous when people act like dahs often does.

If we want to substitute the synonyms I provided, we need only change the words into the proper form to modify the appropriate noun ("situation"), as follows:

Sometimes I just find the situation so unbelievable or doubtful when people act like dahs often does.

The sentence can be made more clear, but is grammatically correct as is.

Revisionist history at it's finest.

Posted by bistiza on 9/19/2013 9:52:00 AM (view original):
I used the word "incredulous" instead of the more technically appropriate word "incredible" ON PURPOSE because the word "incredible" can often give the connotation of something as being good or desirable, which is (quite obviously) not the right way to view things in this case. The word "incredulous" communicates the same essential message while avoiding that potential connotation.

Perhaps YOU should "just let an argument go" here. Both of you keep digging a deeper hole trying to find something wrong with the sentence based on a technicality which was PURPOSEFULLY avoided for good reason. The only mistake being made here is YOURS for failing to grasp that.

Six days after that post it was used "on purpose".  Why didn't you say it was used on purpose with that last novella you posted?  You certainly said enough in it....

Posted by bistiza on 9/26/2013 10:44:00 AM (view original):

So you're admitting that you used the word incorrectly?

What did I say?

The word was used in a technically incorrect manner for a deliberate purpose, which was served quite well.

The problem several people are having here is that they are trying to make this into a "black and white" issue when that doesn't work. Yet they keep hammering on with it because they are on a ridiculous crusade to prove me wrong.

I did what I did on purpose for a specific reason, which means I'm not wrong, so get over yourselves and realize your quest is doomed to fail.

Even if it was on purpose, it was still incorrect, right?

Revisionist history at it's finest.

There's no revision there. It's just replacing one word with two others that mean the same thing to demonstrate how it was used correctly.

Six days after that post it was used "on purpose".  Why didn't you say it was used on purpose with that last novella you posted?  You certainly said enough in it....

It was always used on purpose. I was merely demonstrating it was used correctly as well as on purpose.

Even if it was on purpose, it was still incorrect, right?

No.

It was used correctly in the context.

It can only be considered "incorrect" in a technical sense. The very POINT I'm making is that this is irrelevant because the contextual use is far more important here than the technical use.

Again, the quest to prove me wrong here is doomed to fail, because it's not a "black and white" issue.

Also, your indicated before you were blocking me. Either you lied or you have removed the block to join the crusade. Either way it's pretty funny.

I planned to get out of your thread, SF, but it's just so much fun to get the best of no less than four people (BL, dahs, dapper, and taint) all at once.