(no subject)

[omorka]

(Sorry about the friendslist-spamming, y'all. Last one tonight, I promise.)

There is a world of difference between "it was not meant to be" and "it was meant not to be."

An awful lot of people say the former when they actually mean the latter.

Comments

[bassfingers.livejournal.com]

You think? Please elaborate. I think the general usage implies "were it not that it ain't, it would"...the supposition being the dreamlike "I wish it were so, but alas and alack..."

I read "meant not to be" as causal fate saying, "nope, you're screwed, no matter what your wishes" which isn't generally in the tone of those uttering the former.

[kansas-dave.livejournal.com]

The former sounds ambiguous to me.

"It was not meant-to-be"

vs

"It was not meant to-be"

[omorka.livejournal.com]

Was largely referring to sentences like "Two men just aren't meant to be together like that," "A woman isn't meant to be in charge of the household," etc. In almost every case, the speaker is actually saying that homosexuality/women's rights/whatever is meant not to exist - I don't get most of the wistfulness that you describe here from that.

[quantumduck.livejournal.com]

I always assumed that this was a matter of interpretation of God's will. In both cases I feel people often intend to invoke that it is God who means for things to be or not to be.

For people who believe in a more plastic notion of divine will or fate there are clearly two radically different meanings. If you believe in a more activist God then the two become conflated.

For me both phrases are sort of meaningless. I tend to think of things as being or not being. Intent is such an anthropocentric notion. ;-)

[omorka.livejournal.com]

I would argue that denying other things intent is anthropocentric, as it makes us the only things in the Whole Big Universe with any sort of Will (whether free or constrained). But you knew that already.

And I've heard the homophobic and sexist usages from multiple people who would claim to be agnostic or atheist. If asked, they would probably claim Natural Law as the basis for the statement - evolutionary biology and such crap-like. It might be worth mentioning that all of the non-religious or areligious people I've heard it from are at least a full generation older than us, though.