[andycowley]

As a Brit, I don't think I've ever encountered the latter meaning. I've only ever heard it to mean 'perplexed'.

[codeulike]

Its clearly a UK/USA split, for some reason the article does not mention this.

Wikipedia has it on 'List of words having different meanings in American and British English'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_having_different...

[kimbernator]

The article does not mention this, but the second paragraph links a MW definition which does explicitly call out that this usage is primarily US-based: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonplussed

[n4r9]

Also a Brit, but I thought it meant "unbothered" until 5-6 years ago.

[rorylawless]

Another Brit confirming this understanding of the word (although I just found out about the original meaning about a minute ago).

[beretguy]

As a non native English speaker, it’s my first time seeing or hearing this word.

[pc86]

Don't worry I'm sure there are a good number of native English speakers who've never come across it either. It's not exactly in common usage.

[DanielVZ]

As a non native its always fun to learn new vocab. A few months ago I heard the word Vicariously for like the second or third time, and when I looked at the definition it was interestingly both complex and very human at the same time:

experienced or realized through imaginative or sympathetic participation in the experience of another.

[kibwen]

As an American, I assume without evidence that it's way more common in British English, because over here it feels like an exotic word that people only pull out to be semi-fancy, like "whom".

[mikestew]

like an exotic word that people only pull out to be semi-fancy, like "whom"

Semi-fancy? Man, that's a pretty low bar for fifty-cent words. I use it so I sound like I actually went to school and paid attention. If those with whom I speak find basic grammar fancy, that's on them.

[zarzavat]

Wait… do Americans not say whom?

[cryptonector]

> because over here it feels like an exotic word that people only pull out to be semi-fancy, like "whom".

Them's fightin' words. 'Whom' is super useful because it is grammatically necessary.

[082349872349872]

"Babe, we have guests, whom we use the fancy relative pronouns with."

Don't make me delve any deeper into pedantry ("with whom we use...")

[sandspar]

JK Rowling uses it frequently in the Harry Potter series, a series aimed at children. I assume her editors carefully combed her words for anything that may confuse a child. Nonplussed got through. Perhaps because British editors thought nonplussed is easy to understand?

[gadders]

I always knew it as perplexed. I eschew this inferior recent meaning.

[Angostura]

As another Brit, I too have only ever used it to mean perplexed.

But frequently I’ve seen it used in the context of perplexed about the fuss - which I guess has contributed to the newer meaning

[bjornlouser]

what about 'moot'. Do Brits screw that up like Americans? 'moot point'

[SamBam]

Hmmm, is the second definition here [1] the "screwed up" one?

> An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically ... the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.

That's literally the only way I've heard it. (American here.) I'm nonplussed about this.

1. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point

[dclowd9901]

A rare thing to be able to hear people talk who actually know what words mean.