peculiarly, strangely, oddly, weirdly

< Previous | Next >

vost

Senior Member
France, Français
I'm trying to understand the difference between these words.
Say I use a modified version of example I used this thread, which one should I use?

now and then, you react peculiarly/strangely/oddly/weirdly and you would think don't tell you the truth/I lie to you, you wouldn't do/act/behave otherwise.
 
  • ace02nc

    Senior Member
    English - United States
    Even if you choose the best word/phrase from each of your options here, your sentence doesn't make that much sense. Perhaps break it down into separate thoughts, and then we can help you reconstruct it properly.
     

    JamesM

    Senior Member
    "You react oddly/strangely" both sound fine to me. To me, "oddly" means "in a way that is unusual compared to your normal behavior." "Strangely" is similar, but it implies a certain amount of emotional distance to me, as if the person withdrew from the conversation suddenly. "Peculiarly" is, to me, odd behavior by anyone's standard, not just an unusual reaction for that particular person. "Weirdly" is even more pronounced in its departure from social norms.

    That is just my impression and use of the words.

    I'm afraid I can't make much sense out of your sentence, though. What are you trying to say?
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    I'm trying to understand the difference between these words.
    Say I use a modified version of example I used this thread, which one should I use?

    now and then, you react peculiarly/strangely/oddly/weirdly and you would think don't tell you the truth/I lie to you, you wouldn't do/act/behave otherwise.
    Hi vost

    I'm trying to think how I would react if I received your message (is this another message to your anglophone female friend?)

    I think the version I'd find most understandable/least worrying would be:

    Now and then, you react in a way which seems strange and you seem to think I'm not telling you the truth/I'm lying to you.

    I don't think you need the last bit.
     

    vost

    Senior Member
    France, Français
    I'm trying to think how I would react if I received your message (is this another message to your anglophone female friend?)
    Not this time. It's only a sentence I wrote to use the words I'm trying to understand.
    I think the version I'd find most understandable/least worrying would be:

    Now and then, you react in a way which seems strange and you seem to think I'm not telling you the truth/I'm lying to you.

    I don't think you need the last bit.
    I realize my sentence is quite weird (it's colloquial French translated almost word for word, sorry) but you got the idea. I try to explain what I was trying to say:

    now and then, you react in a way which seems odd and if at that time you were thinking I was lying to you, you would have not reacted in a different way.

    That's what I was trying to say using colloquial language :D
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Vost, I'm sorry, I've got real difficulties understanding what you wanted to say. Can you explain in a different way?
     

    vost

    Senior Member
    France, Français
    I interact with that person (talking, email, etc.). sometimes, this person react in a way (with words, body language, etc.) that seems odd as it seems not related to what I said/wrote/etc., as if that person was thinking I'm lieing (how do you write to lie with -ing?) to them.

    what you wrote (Now and then, you react in a way which seems strange and you seem to think I'm not telling you the truth/I'm lying to you.) capture the meaning but not the way I would like to say it:
    now and then, you react in a way which seems odd. if you were thinking that I was lieing to you, your attitude would not have been different/you wouldn't have behaved in a different way.
     

    JamesM

    Senior Member
    There is something in the logic that is getting lost (and I'm afraid we are drifting off-topic.)

    Sometimes:

    1) You interact with the person
    2) They behave oddly
    3) You attribute the odd behavior to their thinking that you are lying to them

    All that is clear (unless I'm completely missing the point.) However, your sentence doesn't say the same thing:

    Sometimes:

    1) You interact with the person
    2) They behave oddly
    3) They behave oddly because they think you are lying

    We are fine up to here. The last part is where it goes off the rails for me.

    4) If they did think you were lying to them, their behavior would not have been odd/different

    This sounds like the opposite of what is being said in points 1 through 3.
     

    Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    .

    4) If they did think you were lying to them, their behavior would not have been odd/different

    This sounds like the opposite of what is being said in points 1 through 3.
    I may be getting too fancy myself, but I take the intended meaning of:
    "if you were thinking that I was lieing to you, your attitude would not have been different/you wouldn't have behaved in a different way."
    To be:
    If you were thinking that I was lying to you, your attitude would not have been different from the one you exhibited/ you wouldn't have behaved in a way different from the way you acted.
    More simply:
    "If you thought I was lying, you wouldn't have acted any differently from the way you did." In other words: "You acted just as you would have if you [had] thought I was lying."
    The conditional form is less blunt than: "Your actions showed that you thought I was lying."

    I may be completely off track, of course.
     
    Last edited:

    vost

    Senior Member
    France, Français
    There is something in the logic that is getting lost (and I'm afraid we are drifting off-topic.)

    Sometimes:

    1) You interact with the person
    2) They behave oddly
    3) You attribute the odd behavior to their thinking that you are lying to them but I have no evidence that their odd behavior is due to their thinking that I am lying to them

    All that is clear (unless I'm completely missing the point.) However, your sentence doesn't say the same thing:

    Sometimes:

    1) You interact with the person
    2) They behave oddly
    3) They behave oddly because they think you are lying at least I think so

    We are fine up to here. The last part is where it goes off the rails for me.

    4) If they did think you were lying to them, their behavior would not have been odd/different of the one they had. as I have no evidence that their behavior is due to the fact they may think I'm lying to them and that I do not want to tell them/wrongly accuse them of thinking I'm lying to them, I tell them that if they were thinking I'm lying to them, they would have behave as they did/they would not have behave differently.

    This sounds like the opposite of what is being said in points 1 through 3.
     

    vost

    Senior Member
    France, Français
    I may be getting too fancy myself, but I take the intended meaning of:
    "if you were thinking that I was lieing to you, your attitude would not have been different/you wouldn't have behaved in a different way."
    To be:
    If you were thinking that I was lying to you, your attitude would not have been different from the one you exhibited/ you wouldn't have behaved in a way different from the way you acted.
    your explaination is shorter and clearer than mine :)
    More simply:
    "If you thought I was lying, you wouldn't have acted any differently from the way you did." In other words: "You acted just as you would have if you [had] thought I was lying."
    The conditional form is less blunt than: "Your actions showed that you thought I was lying."
    that was my goal
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top