ridiculously

[modus.irrealis]

I was wondering how widespread the use of "ridiculously" meaning "extremely (in a positive sense)" is? I was about to use it in a context where I realized it that it's slang and could easily be seen as offensive by somebody looking at the dictionary meaning. So just how slangy is this?

Although oddly enough, my use of "ridiculous" as positive is severely limited compared to the adverb.

 

[MonsieurAquilone]

In my eyes, simply, ridiculously is negative in any context. For positive use, using it would be ridiculous (sorry, bad pun).

 

[panjandrum]

The only example that comes to mind of ridiculously meaning extremely is ridiculously expensive.
That is not at all positive

 

[foxfirebrand]

Although ridiculously has become a widely and loosely used (overused?) word in AE, it will never just mean "extremely" or even "to an outrageous degree."

Ridicule is a much stronger word, and isn't used as much, but its degrogatory meaning is inescapable. "To an outrageous degree" can mean you are delighted in the excess involved-- ridiculously means you look down on it, even if it rises to the level of amusing you.

Still, it's a weakened word, as so many adjectives and adverbs tend to be in AE-- a language that gropes for vocabulary to convey so much that is excessive and unprecedented in our culture. (Yes, we have a culture.)

Ridicule is strong and unmitigated in its negativity and derision. Ridiculous is weaker, and "that's ridiculous" might simply mean "are you sure about that?" Ridiculously is even weaker, and does almost sink to the level of an intensifier like very-- but its connection to ridicule is understood even by people who live trendy and "outrageous" lives and don't think of real derogation and ridicule with much clarity.

I know, this like so many of my essays has gotten ridiculously convoluted. Cue laughtrack and fade to shades of grey. And the next time you're tempted to use ridiculously as a generic intensifier-- just say very. Or splurge on a couple of extra letters and say overly.
.

 

[modus.irrealis]

Thanks for the responses. It seems my use isn't widespread at all. I guess I'll just stick to using it in casual speech, because I can easily how it could be taken the wrong way. But for me, in this use, it has been cut off from "ridicule," just like "terrific" (which I don't think I have ever actually said) has nothing to do with "terror."

And "very" is so, well, very boring , and "overly" is negative, isn't it? I can't think of a context where I'd use that in a positive sense. Is this another difference between us?

 

[foxfirebrand]

... just like "terrific" (which I don't think I have ever actually said) has nothing to do with "terror."

Why don't you try looking it up, if you aren't sure? It's an impediment to clear thinking, if you hold too many of these opinions based only on uncertain notions.
.

 

[modus.irrealis]

Why don't you try looking it up, if you aren't sure? It's an impediment to clear thinking, if you hold too many of these opinions based only on uncertain notions.

And what's your problem today? The etymology of a word has little to do with it's modern day meaning, and "terrific" has been cut off from any association with "terror," which is all I said.

 

[maxiogee]

And what's your problem today? The etymology of a word has little to do with it's modern day meaning, and "terrific" has been cut off from any association with "terror," which is all I said.

No, what you said was…

just like "terrific" (which I don't think I have ever actually said) has nothing to do with "terror."

"Having nothing to do with" is a long way from "has been cut off from any association with". In fact the second implies the very opposite of the first.

 

[Sallyb36]

I think you can use it in the way you want. you can say someone is ridiculously clever, ridiculously beautiful, ridiculously lots of things, to mean extremely.

 

[MonsieurAquilone]

By the way, I think terrific used to have some connotation with "terror", I once read something like "a terrific accident occured this morning..."

 

[maxiogee]

Ridicule is a much stronger word, and isn't used as much, but its degrogatory meaning is inescapable. "To an outrageous degree" can mean you are delighted in the excess involved-- ridiculously means you look down on it, even if it rises to the level of amusing you.

Oooh FFB, Surely "outrage" is also negative - you seem to want to eat your ridiculous cake and have your outrageous one!

 

[modus.irrealis]

No, what you said was…

Wow, with that kind of editing you'd fit right in at Fox News. What I said was

But for me, in this use, it has been cut off from "ridicule," just like "terrific" (which I don't think I have ever actually said) has nothing to do with "terror."

It still seems pretty obvious to me in context what I meant. And in the larger context of firefoxbrand's plainly false comment that "ridiculously" is still tied to its etymological source for all people (accompanied by holier-than-thou shots at people who use the word), I'd have thought my picking "terrific" and "terror" made my point pretty clearly. Maybe context is something's that important only in Canadian English.

I think you can use it in the way you want. you can say someone is ridiculously clever, ridiculously beautiful, ridiculously lots of things, to mean extremely.

Thank. I'm not sure, though, if you're saying that it's used that way in you ara? Because I'm still wondering where it's used this way.

 

[JamesM]

I've definitely heard "ridiculous" and "outrageous" used as positive adverbs ("ridicously good", "outrageously happy") to modify adjectives, or even as positive adjectives standing on their own.

"That ride was outrageous!" or "That drop was ridiculous!"

I would consider both a mild type of slang, since it's "re-purposing" the word (to use modern corporate "slang" that itself "re-purposes" the word "purpose". )

 

[foxfirebrand]

Oooh FFB, Surely "outrage" is also negative - you seem to want to eat your ridiculous cake and have your outrageous one!

Well, you make a pretty slick point there-- but I didn't say anything categorical about outrageous-- note what you yourself quoted from my post. I've added a touch of emphasis.

Ridicule is a much stronger word, and isn't used as much, but its degrogatory meaning is inescapable. "To an outrageous degree" can mean you are delighted in the excess involved-- ridiculously means you look down on it, even if it rises to the level of amusing you.

I'm saying that "outrageous" retains its meaning of excess, am I not? I think that's the same criterion I applied to "ridiculously."

If you want to say "ah, but you can delight in ridicule too," I'll concede that point. Wait a minute-- I just noticed "even if it rises to the level of amusing you." Nope, I think I gave both words adequate, and consistent enough shrift.

At any rate we seem to agree that etymology figures in the use of words, unless one is a lox with no sense of word origins, no conception that they matter-- and a dismissive want of interest in the topic when it's offered. At his request!

Your post about the difference between the two things modus.immobilis said was, of course, patently correct. I doubt that I am the only one who saw it that way.
.

 

[maxiogee]

It still seems pretty obvious to me in context what I meant.

Your post about the difference between the two things modus.immobilis said was, of course, patently correct. I doubt that I am the only one who saw it that way.

Indeed. We need to be sure that people, reading our words, see what we mean, and not what we write.