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
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
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.
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.
My pet example is Americans and “ironically/unironically”.
Please don’t do this to me
Literally.
I literally love and hate this comment.
Lol, I came here to make this exact comment
That’s dumb (which originally meant “mute” or “unable to speak”)
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.
I feel like people forget that words can have multiple definitions. You can have a technical definition and a popular definition
But do you mean literally everyone or literally everyone?
I mean this i show it literally works, right?
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.
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.
Definately!
I guess it’s a moot point
And I’m still gonna bitch about it if they’ve reduced the usefulness of a word due to habitual misuse!
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.
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.
My arms were too short to reach.
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
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 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.
🥸
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.
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.
Agree++
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.
English is confusing enough. For the sake of future generation I’ll correct you for using litterally like figuratively even if I’m the last person on earth that uses it correctly.
But using figuratively wouldn’t really ever be correct either. “Literally” is usually used as a hyperbole, so if you would replace it with figuratively it wouldn’t work as a hyperbole anymore. So it would change the meaning. Just because something is meant figuratively doesn’t mean people would use the word figuratively to describe it.
Emphasis and meaning through context are key in the English language. “Correct” Grammar and “proper” RP English can get fucked.
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’m going to disagree here on the basis that this logic leads to bubbles of people thinking they’re right when they’re not even close to a majority.
who cares what people think? we’re all going to die anyway, just use the words you want to use to say the things you want to say. whether or not you align with a stranger on the internet is only as relevant as you want it to be.
If they’re making a mistake in public and it leads to repercussions for all of us, better to correct their mistake.
That’s literally how accents and dialects work. People in a bubble developed different linguistic shifts. To them, and to to broader world as a whole, they are speaking a correct form of English, and yet some thick accents are practically unintelligible to people who haven’t practiced hearing the accent. We only recently began worrying about being understood beyond our narrow in groups. For the majority of history, these “bubbles” are just what we called cultures.
That explains why the ten thousand years of recorded history is filled with random violence and wars, but the point that I’m making is that things like Dictionaries and Encyclopedias and other written records should decide what is correct. They do indeed adapt over time when they have deemed things have sufficiently changed to update the definitions.
Just like how scientists decide what is science, historians decide what is history, so too should linguists decide what is proper use of a specific language.
We’re just getting to the oldest linguistic debate. Is a linguist’s job to describe, or to prescribe? I lean very heavily towards describe.
