Ok ok… I’ll be the one…
“Wrongly”
He wrongly assumed he was using the word wrongly.
Very bigly, indeed!
Incidentally, I really hate that the UK expression for when someone is feeling sick is “poorly”.
It’s got the “ly” ending which is one of the clear signs of an adverb, and in other contexts it is used as an adverb. But, for some reason the British have turned it into an adjective meaning sick. Sometimes they use it in a way where it can be seen as an adverb: “He’s feeling poorly”, in which case it seems to be modifying “feeling”. In the North American dialect you could substitute the adjective “sick”: “He’s feeling sick”. But, other times they say “She won’t be coming in today, she’s poorly”. What is the adverb modifying there, “is”?
Washing-up fluid.
Washing up what?
Dishes?
Dishwasher fluid.
Why fluid, not liquid? Air is a fluid too. Is it in gaseous form?
Also, why “washing-up”? Was “washing” not enough? Was a direction strictly necessary?
Think different
Some flat adverbs sound perfectly natural to most speakers, like “play nice” or “drive safe”. Others have less acceptability among people in general, like “That tastes real good.”
I don’t even see “nice” in “play nice” as an adverb. You could switch “play” for “be” – “be nice”, same with “be safe”.
There’s that old line that if my aunt had wheels she’d be a bicycle. Maybe the command form is muddling the topic here, but using the be-verb with an adjective like that attaches a subject complement, essentially describing the subject. But “I am fast” describing a person doesn’t mean that saying “I drive fast” is describing a drive as a noun.
I’m gonna get the shit downvoted out of me for this, but the problem with this idea is that insular communities tend to redefine words and then expect everyone outside their bubble to know their new definition. Doing so also robs the language of a word that served a specific purpose, such as in the case of the word “literally.”
And then the speakers from insular communities get told to fuck off with their special definitions, or they’re so persistent that the new definition catches on. Either way, problem solved.
The word “literally” still serves its old purpose just fine, along with the new one.
My issue with “literally” is that it’s become an actual part of the dictionary definition rather than being recognized as merely a hyperbolic use of the word.
Dictionaries are books of history, not law.
Language pedantry is a branch of theology.
Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive.
But every word can be used hyperbolically.
no, it can’t. hyperbole means to exaggerate, to a great degree. descriptors like “round” or “soft” can’t be hyperbolic.
Calling fat people round is hyperbole isn’t it?
Or calling a bald guy “Curly”
no, it’s either true or false, but even a false usage isn’t hyperbolic, it’s just wrong
It really depends on how they are built. I have deffo seen some rounder obese people.
Dictionaries can also note hyperbolic (and other “deformed”) uses of words, especially when commonplace, I see no problem with that. You have some odd expectations from dictionaries.
A dictionary is a record.
Language influences the dictionary, the dictionary doesn’t influence language.
My pet example is Americans and “ironically/unironically”.
Please don’t do this to me
Didn’t english literally develop in an insular community (britain)?
English is what you get when a community can’t defend its borders and keeps being taken over by new rulers with a different language, which then works its way partly into common usage. Also, random word borrowing, because fuck you it’s ours now.
Not insular enough to be isolated, hence that saying about it being three languages in a trenchcoat.
Of course not isolated, but insular, literally.
Literally.
I literally love and hate this comment.
That’s dumb (which originally meant “mute” or “unable to speak”)
But do you mean literally everyone or literally everyone?
If it is not literally everyone, it still might be correct in the way that using a word for (one of) its jargon meaning(s) is correct. So, correct in context.
When using words to convey information to an audience to whom you might not be able to clarify, it is useful to use words for the meanings listed in common dictionar(y/ies) (“correctly”) so that the audience can resolve confusions through those dictionaries.
I mean this i show it literally works, right?
Well. Sort of.
Some terminology is better defined by how the relevant experts use it. It’s singular and precise definition is required for any useful dialogue. If 99% of people call a kidney a liver but doctors call it a kidney its a kidney.
Some terminology evolves and is used differently by different groups. Sometimes the more illiterate group flattens the language by removing nuance or even entirely removing a concept from a language with no replacement. Arguably both definitions may be common usage but one is worse and using it means you are.
Some word usage just becomes so common everyone, even generational gaps understand it. If you talk to an 18 or a 65 year old and say the word blowjob, they both know what you mean, yet they aren’t out there blowing on dicks or trying to force air up urethras… Hopefully…
yet they aren’t out there blowing on dicks or trying to force air up urethras… Hopefully…
I see you don’t regularly read the sex forums and questions on reddit.
Hopes dashed. It’s not common, but there are some people who have the right combination of circumstances to make them think blowjobs involve the movement of air.
I feel like people forget that words can have multiple definitions. You can have a technical definition and a popular definition
And I’m still gonna bitch about it if they’ve reduced the usefulness of a word due to habitual misuse!
My two are Literally, and Crescendo. I really hate it when they are used wrong, and now the wrong answers are considered acceptable. That means Literally actually holds no meaning at all, and by changing the definition of Crescendo, the last 500 years of Western Music Theory have been changed by people who have no understanding of music at all.
I was not aware of the crescendo one and looked it up. Imagine my surprise learning this dates back at least 100 years ago with the Great Gatsby (have not read it). I am now irrationaly angry that I’m learning about this way too late to complain about it.
Literally being used in the absurdist manner also dates back to the 1800s
I knew that and wasn’t irrationally angry at this one. A hyperbolic or absurd meaning does not bother me (but I get that its “overuse”, for a while, could).
How does someone use crescendo wrong?
Apparently, to mean the climax rather than the increase leading to it.
It’s supposed to mean an increase in volume, but instead it now means a climax. Saying something will “rise to a crescendo” is a popular saying, I’ve seen many good writers say it, but it is wrong. The rising part IS the Crescendo, and the proper way to say it would be that something “crescendoed to a climax.” It is a specific musical term, with a specific musical meaning, and non-musical people have adopted it improperly.
Civilians can’t just come in and start stealing jargon words and apply their own non-jargon meanings. We rely on those meanings to communicate in that world. It would be like suddenly calling a tire iron a stethoscope, and not understanding why a doctor would think that’s stupid.
Civilians can’t just come in and start stealing jargon words and apply their own non-jargon meanings.
This is (literally) one of the more insane takes I’ve ever seen about language. You want jargon to apply only as jargon meaning in all contexts? Lay usage aside, what about when two fields of study use the same word? Battle royale to see who gets to keep it?
Obviously you look into the literature to see who has the first claim, and they get to keep it. The others have to edit and re-print the entirety of the corpus.
Sounds reasonable to me.
There is certain language that is technical to specific things.
A writer wants to borrow language from other worlds to add spice to their writing, so perhaps they borrow a musical term because they think it will describe an action with a special flair. He basically knows that the word Crescendo is a word that somehow relates to intensity, although he’s not exactly sure of the nuance of it, but it has a really musical sound, and will add some nice flavor to his sentence. So he writes about something “rising to a crescendo” and every person who ever had band as a kid, or took piano lessons, etc. CRINGES.
It’s not just about shifting language, it’s about writers not offending their readers with imprecise, poorly chosen words. A writer should strive to choose the absolute correct word, with the exact nuance, and using Crescendo in place of Climax is an egregious example of a poor, imprecise choice that compromised the narrative, and worse, makes the reader question the writer’s competency.
Truman Capote once sat at a bar with another writer, who said “I’ve spent all day working on one page,” and Capote said “I spent all day working on one word.”
That’s because he wanted to choose the exact word, with the precise nuance, to tell his story. I believe that Capote would agree with me about Crescendo.
A writer once put the letter ‘s’ in ‘eiland’ in order to make the word look more Latin. This, despite the fact that the word ‘island’ has no Latin roots. It caught on and now that is the proper spelling of ‘island’ and you’d be a fool to try to force people to spell it ‘eiland’.
English is used by the unwashed masses and trying to get it to adhear to strict rules or not change will be as effective as trying to stop a flood by holding out your hand.
English was not exactly right when you were born with the spelling of ‘island’ and was wrong hundreds of years ago with ‘eiland’, nor is it wrong that dumb means stupid instead of mute, or literally can be used to mean figuratively.
Gif þū ne sacast for eftcyme to Eald Englisc, þonne is hit līcnessēocnes tō sacanne þæt sprǣc ne mæg wrixlan.
I sure hope you say pizzas are disk-shaped, not circle-shaped.
Disk and circle are properly defined geometric terms. Civilians can’t just come in and start misusing them.
To be fair maybe you do make the difference between disks and circles, but the point is, you (and everyone) almost certainly “abuse” some other language element that will also annoy somebody else. And if they corrected you, when all your life you and people around you had done the same abuse and understood each other perfectly, you’d think, rightly, that they are being pedantic.
Do you mean Disk, or Disc?
Both spellings are accepted to designate the mathematical object. I think it’s mostly a UK vs US spelling but please don’t quote me on that.
EDIT just realised I missed the opportunity to answer with the extremely unhelpful mathematician response: “yes”
Look it up, it’s actually fairly complicated, depending on whether you are talking about storage media, vertebrae, Frisbees, etc. and then there is a layer of US vs UK that gets involved.
Oh, yeah, and as for the answer about pizzas, they’re Round. I’ve never called one a disk©, or a circle.
is Tire Iron, the same as Tyre Lever?
Looks like a stethoscope to me.
Everyone can do with a language whatever the fuck they want.
Intelligibility is the only rule in a living language.
So go suck your bravura, and prima vista all over your colla voce.
That’s odd
Well yes it is to me too seeing as that abuse was not made, to my knowledge at least, in my native language.
But then I thought, “well if there is a crescendo, unless it goes on forever, there will be a climax”. So I kinda get where the abuse (or misunderstanding, or literary license, or whatever the intent is) comes from. I don’t, personally, agree with it, so won’t use it that way. But whatever I personally think is irrelevant, at least now I am aware someone might mean that. So I guess now, in English at least, it’s been long enough and widespread enough it’s no longer an abuse (colloquially speaking)
The climax one is in the dictionary.
I’m pretty sure this battle was lost a long time ago. No idea why OP thinks it wasn’t.
Literally holds meaning, two meanings principally. They just happen to be opposite. “Literally” could mean either “actually” or “not actually, but similar in a way”, but wouldn’t ever mean “duck”.
“Literally” only holds the opposite meaning when used as a hyperbole.
You should literally literally when a literally flies straight for your face because those feathered fowl can be as aggressive as gooses.
Joke’s on you, I’m having roasted literally for dinner
Literally was being used as an intensifier in both cases where it was being used to signify the truth of something and in the absurdist manner. So, no, it didn’t lose all meaning. So long as you’re not emphasizing something too absurd to be considered real, the original meaning still holds. And if someone uses the word to emphasize something that could be real, though unlikely, they’ll likely get the appropriate follow-up.
On the Crescendo one, do you also get mad about forte? Cause basically the same thing happened there. And no one will confuse the music term for the colloquial term in either case.
I hadn’t really thought about forte, but now that you mention it, yeah, that one pisses me off, too. Thinking about it, I do avoid using that term.
And Literally is supposed to mean that some thing is truly as described, to differentiate between exaggeration. So when it is used as exaggeration, it causes the sort of confusion that means exactly what the literal meaning is literally supposed to avoid.
Heaven forbid someone use a colloquialism! How will they ever be understood?
(For the sake of clarity I feel I must point out that I do not believe Heaven should, in fact, forbid such a practice. I fear without this clarification my first sentence is impossible to understand.)
You shouldn’t use religious slang in your writing, it offends the Puritans.
“Heaven” originally meant “the visible sky” so this is fine.
How do you feel about other words with their own opposite meanings, like dust or sanction? If the meaning isn’t clear it’s almost always because the speaker constructed a sentence poorly, which of course can lead to misunderstandings even when not using contronyms.
I think “whence” is a near-perfect example. “Whence” means “from what origin”.
The word is used nearly exclusively in the phrase “from whence it came”, or “from (from what origin) it came”
Love it.
“I have to return back to the ATM machine, but I forgot my PIN number.”
That evolution has happened SO many times. Why does “literally” give you fits when “awful” or “terrific” do not? Perhaps because it’s the shift you happen to be living through?
Or maybe those other things shouldn’t have happened, but it’s too late for them. Now we have to save the words that are in danger now.
If a boat is sinking, and I’m saying we have to save those people, would the proper response be “Well, where were you when the Titanic was going down? Why aren’t you all worried about them?”
Words aren’t “endangered”. There are literally an infinite number of potential words, if we need to reinvent a meaning, we can quite easily(see: synonym). Further, the original meanings still exist. You can still use “awful” to mean “inspiring awe” and you’re correct, you just won’t be understood.
This guy is trying to mop up the beach every time the tide comes in.
Nah, I’m just fighting the battle for Literally and Crescendo. Those are my hills to die on. I can’t save the entire literary world by myself.
Those words are already lost.
Honestly, I could care less about this shit.
Do you care a lot or only a little?
I told you, I could care less! It’s a moot point!
But, how much less could you care? Alot less?
Ah, my favourite.
I literally don’t give a shit
And I don’t want any of your shit.
I grew up on dairy farm and it was one of my chores to shove the shit and then spread that shit nearly everyday. So I’ve had enough shit. I’m so done with that shit and the assholes it came out of. And I don’t need anyone giving me shit anymore either.
So you just keep your shit to yourself.
I can’t tell if you’re using this idiomatic expression in the wrong way on purpose for a great joke, or in an annoying, unaware way. 😅
Its obviously a joke.
But maybe you understood that and your comment is sarcastic as well. So now I am the one being woooshed.
🥸
For all intensive purposes, the meaning of words matters less than how we use it. Irregardless of how we decimate it’s meaning, so long as we get the point across there is no need to nip it in the butt. Most people could care less.
::glares:: Well done. 😆
I will hunt you for sport.
YeS, YoUrE rIgHt. aS lOnG aS tHe mEaNiNg iS uNdErStOod, iT dOeS NoT mAtTeR.
I’m filled with unreasonable blind rage now. Thank you.
For all intensive purposes, the meaning of words matters less than how we use it.
I think you mean fewer than how we use it lol.
I hate you.
I guess it’s a moot point
Definately!
Can I have some more pixels please
deleted by creator
April I have more pixels please
June I have more pixels please.<- period
I don’t know, june you?
Would you mind providing us a few more pixels? Only if it is no trouble o’course.
/j
I don’t see the backside of Morpheus’ head.
Should look like that:
Just realised there’s a gun pointed to Neo’s head in both images
I’ve allready to rite we’ll, but than my conscious sad, “For get the rules,” so I let my lose ideals led me. I’m two stubborn to accept that I should of staid in school.
I think I had a stroke reading this.
My arms were too short to reach.
Yes, but you understood it eventually, so you can’t criticize it.
Understanding something eventually isn’t the same as understanding it immediately. The latter is necessary for effective communication. I don’t have the brain power or neurotype to decipher a text like I would if it were latin.
I’m not saying that you should shut up if you genuinely can’t help it. That’s ok. I’ll figure it out. We can both communicate with each other to the best of our abilities and I won’t mind at all.
But if you can, you should try to be considerate. If you think you spending slightly less time on it is worth me having to spend much more time on understanding it, I find that to be a dick move and I won’t give you the time of day forever.
Languages are living things. And living things always change. Note the Great English Vowel Change. Even the Norwegian my Grandfather spoke and that I learned from him was virtually a dead language that modern Norwegians stopped using in the 1850s. And the English spoken in the UK is different than the American English I speak. Spanish spoken in Spain isn’t the same as someone from Mexico speaks.
And when conversing with someone, (in the language of your choice), the words you choose to use are defined by the context you use them in. Words can have multiple meanings, but it’s the context and tone clarifies those meanings. Consider all the meanings of the single word ‘fuck’.
But problems start with written words. And many people have poor written communication skills. It can be hard to parse meaning from poorly written words because there is little context and tone that comes through with a typed sentence.
We are all just baying at the moon like any pack. And hoping some understands us.
Written word is a facsimile of a facsimile of what we’re actually communicating. We go from nebulous thoughts, concepts not bound by language, to sounds that roughly convey those concepts, and then to squiggly lines that roughly convey those sounds, and then back up the chain in the other person. Really, it’s a miracle we understand each other at all.
I would say this is not universal. For some, the written word is the native “tongue”, conveying the actual, intended meaning. The written word allows the speaker the opportunity to evaluate and revise their language to match their intent, and the listener the opportunity to re-evaluate previously transmitted thoughts.
The oral variant is dependent on the real-time aptitude of the speaker to articulate their thoughts and message, and for the listener to extract that meaning from the same. For those of us handicapped in these traits, the spoken word is the poor facsimile for actual (written) communication.
There are those constraints around written/spoken word, for sure. I’m more referring to how close it is to the “raw” thought.
We evolved the ability to think. In order to allow our thoughts to reach others, we developed spoken word. In order to allow those spoken words to be passed through time, we developed written word. Each refers back to the previous “layer” of communication.
Even someone who has a speech impediment, for instance, is still using the same written language as someone else in the same culture. And that written language was developed specifically to try and evoke the words someone in the culture speaks.
We should probably resist hyper simplifying language, but whatever, I guess.
I can’t help but think about 1984’s newspeak whenever I see something like the abominable “unalive”. I know the reasons are different for this particular one, but I agree that we seem to be moving into that kind of direction.
“We need a new, more powerful, word for things that are bad and wrong. Badong.”
For me it’s adjective/superlative escalation. Hey, this bagel is awesome. It fills me with awe. It’s much better than this soda which is terrible, it strikes me with terror how bad it is. It results in having to throw in intensifiers, which we’re exhausting as well. Wow this movie is so fucking good. It was worth leaving the house for.
I’ve also been both a second language teacher and second language learner. It is really hard to teach a language where 50% of the words are culture dependent and old texts are completely irrelevant. It’s very hard to learn simple language and be told it’s wrong now.
People talk about descriptivist drift like it’s 100% inevitable or even good, ignoring that we have finally reached an era of long term preservation of text and speech, and of global communication. We could be the first generation to be understood plainly for millenia. And what we are deciding to do instead is to make language from 100 years ago sound like Chaucer.
The printing press was invented in 1440, the era of theoretical long-term-preservation has been here and languages keep changing despite it. We aren’t going to hit the brakes on the specific period and culture that you happened to have been born into either.
The irony of someone named Soggy telling me about data preservation on paper is wonderful.
It’s not even really the change, it’s the rate of change. We are accelerating towards mutually unintelligible dialects at an outstanding rate, and at the same time do-nothing linguistic graduates are pleased to denigrate the idea of at least having a single widely-understood vocabulary so that a Malaysian can speak to a Scotsman without having to carry a dictionary.
Fully explaining why the thing you’re asking for is both impossible and undesirable is a job for an anthropology thesis, but the tl;dr version is that it’s a short and straight line from your position to advocating for cultural genocide.
Sure it is. Short and straight.
Go on, lecture an Irish person about cultural genocide. I so wish we had a culture but we don’t speak Irish anymore so of course we are a grey blob that nobody would recognise as distinct anymore 😪
Edit: downvote and run when “we just observe 💛” college rhetoric meets physical reality.
The reason most Americsn linguistics students equate language and culture is because a foreign language is the only different culture they’ve ever been exposed to.
So I should accept people saying “could care less” when they mean the exact opposite? Not sure I can do that.
Idioms don’t have to (and often don’t) make sense. How do you feel about “head over heels”?
Interesting - Wiktionary says that the phrase was originally “heels over head”, which makes sense when conveying the sense of tumbling over. I guess that became corrupted, resulting in “head over heels”. Maybe I should start saying “heels over head” then.
Consider the distinction between accurate and efficient. If your way of speaking becomes technically correct by some standard, but inefficient for the purpose of communication, is that really a desirable outcome? Does it have to be perfect, or just good enough to convey thoughts?
Now reading it, I never directly realized it being this (wrong) way in the english language. In German the equivalent term would be “Hals über Kopf” (Neck over head) which made sense for a feeling of the world being upside down. Funny that in English it is actually the “normal” worldview - at least how the modern expression goes.
I mean, the main point is that language doesn’t have to make “logical” sense. It’s not a math problem. Just look at all the inconsistencies in pretty much every aspect of a language. It’s all there simply because of history and people agreeing on meanings for words and phrases. For example, you’ve got something like prepositions. There’s literally zero logical reason why we talk or speak to someone, but we don’t tell or converse to someone.
And people who are more rigid in thinking about language always seem to think the language they learned growing up is the most “correct” version, whether that has a basis in history or not. Like even though literally has been used as an intensifier for (literally) hundreds of years, that seems to be a sticking point, whereas something like very, which has a similar root (veracis meaning truth), any sentence using very doesn’t have to have an exact truthful meaning.
Hell, once we go back to “original” meanings of words, where do we stop? The singular use of “they” is older than that of singular “you”, but I somehow never see the “singular they is confusing” crowd advocating for a return to thee/thou.
It’s still “Hals über Kopf” (neck over head) in German.
Irregardless, you can still make fun of people for anything. Remember the US president and that disabled guy?
Well I could care less if can’t do that
People need to start saying “God be whit ye!” again instead of “Goodbye” which IMO has nothing to do our Lord and Father in Heaven
No, you should not.
Illiteracy isn’t a valid excuse.
I’ll die on that hill alongside ‘on accident’.
