31–40 of 42 posts
literally : used to describe something that actually happens or exists. A much misused adverb, often for emphasis. People often confuse this word with figuratively.
"I literally died of embarrassment."
"Really? How was reincarnation, you illiterate dipshit?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake, you're literally wrong.
> If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake ... It's not a mistake -- people are free to use words any way they want. Also, the "literally" entry over a Merriam-Webster shows Norman Cousins using the word this way: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally 2 : in effect : virtually Language isn't a science, it's an art. This is an example of artistic freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake ... But the dictionary didn't make a mistake. The word "literally" means what most people think, as well as its opposite. A dictionary's purpose is solely to report how people use words (it describes, it doesn't prescribe), and it got this use right. > It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgeme…
> But the dictionary didn't make a mistake. The word "literally" means what most people think, as well as its opposite. The figurative use of "literal" does not mean the opposite of the literal use (it doesn't mean "not literally (in its literal sense)", it means "as if literally (in its literal sense)".)
http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/literallygloss.htm
Quote: "For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of 'in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.'"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"completely incorrect" is useless prescriptivism. They can call it incorrect all they like, it won't stop anyone.
But more, it misunderstands a dictionary's purpose, which is to dispassionately list how people choose to use words.
Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive. But even the descriptive type should provide information on how the word is used, eg: "sometimes incorrectly used to mean 'figuratively'".
So if a tree falls in the forest literally , does it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But more, it misunderstands a dictionary's purpose, which is to dispassionately list how people choose to use words.
Not according to dictionary.com - that says that the purpose of the dictionary is to provide information on meaning and correct usage of the word. Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive. But even the descriptive type should provide information on how the word is used, eg: "sometimes incorrectly used to mean 'figuratively'".
Wait, think a minute. That description exactly corresponds with what I said. The "correct" usage of a word is precisely, exactly what the speaker thinks it means, at that moment in time.
If a dictionary listed a definition that was not in use by anyone, that would be different -- that would be incorrect.
> Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive.
Yes, and there are no prescriptive dictionaries, at least not in English. The French have one, created by the Académie française:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise
Apart from the French example, it seems telling people how to use words has fallen out of fashion, giving way to another example of evolution by natural selection.
The definition of what is valid, legal would be simple: if 80% of English speaking population understands it, then it's legal. So typos and stuff like this would not be considered a mistake. THere fore the FolloWing wouldz bee valid alsoo.
But then I'd have to define what it means to speak English, which would require a lot of complex rules, etc. Then I thought it would be pointless, as it wouldn't matter if I wrote this down or not. People would still understand each other and go on about their lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"completely incorrect" is useless prescriptivism. They can call it incorrect all they like, it won't stop anyone.
It may be ineffective prescriptivism. The usefulness is in the fact that we should have a word that unambiguously means "in a strict sense, without exaggeration". What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite, and there is no way to tell from the context, eg: "When the tiger went "Rawr! Rawrrr!", I literally fouled my breeches!"
Can't have a factual should. Shoulds are normative.
>What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite
Is the word really useless or indeed useful if no one can provide a 'real' example of actual ambiguity between the two meanings? Furthermore, it's not as if ambiguity between one meaning and an opposite meaning is the greatest ambiguity there is-- if anything, it makes it particularly obvious which meaning the speaker intends.
On my way home yesterday, I thought I'd invent a new natural language. The definition of what is valid, legal would be simple: if 80% of English speaking population understands it, then it's legal. So typos and stuff like this would not be considered a mistake. THere fore the FolloWing wouldz bee valid alsoo. But then I'd have to define what it means to speak English, which would require a lot of complex rules, etc.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be ineffective prescriptivism. The usefulness is in the fact that we should have a word that unambiguously means "in a strict sense, without exaggeration". What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite, and there is no way to tell from the context, eg: "When the tiger went "Rawr! Rawrrr!", I literally fouled my breeches!"
>the fact that we should Can't have a factual should. Shoulds are normative. >What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite Is the word really useless or indeed useful if no one can provide a 'real' example of actual ambiguity between the two meanings? Furthermore, it's not as if ambiguity between one meaning and an opposite meaning is the greatest ambiguity there is-- if anything, it mak…