4 ms·

It's a term that has two accepted meanings, the other meaning being the total opposite of the intended, making it a meaningless "flavor" word. Leave it out of

by krisdol 11y ago

It's a term that has two accepted meanings, the other meaning being the total opposite of the intended, making it a meaningless "flavor" word. Leave it out of phrases from now on, and the phrase will not lose any meaning or clarity.

coldtea 11y ago
>It's a term that has two accepted meanings, the other meaning being the total opposite of the intended, making it a meaningless "flavor" word. No, it's a term that has two accepted meanings that context makes perfectly clear which one was meant. Like "bad" (which can mean actually bad, or "great" as slang, both meanings in the dictionary). In fact many common terms have that characteristic, including fast ("moving quickly" or "fixed in place"), dust (which also means removing dust), etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym >Leave it out of phrases from now on, and the phrase will not lose any meaning or clarity. It's not meant to add to the core meaning of a phrase. It's meant to emphasize something in it. Without it the literal (sic) meaning would be the same, but the intended impact of the phrase would be lessened. It's like: "I don't care for your bonus" and "I don't care for your fucking bonus". The meaning would be the same without the expletive but the intended emphasis and impact lost. Something that Dickens and Shakespeare (who used it that way among tons of others) understood.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  Quote Shakespeare and/or Dickens so I can see whether their use of that word improves the passages, or carries any signal at all for that matter. Otherwise I'll just assume that since they wrote a lot, there's going to be some mediocre bits and padding in it. For all I know, they might simply not have paid attention.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Alternatively you can just ask any linguist, and they'll assure you using "literally" for effect is not just ages old and used by lots of prominent writers, but also an absolutely legitimate use of language, typical of the inventiveness that moves language forward, and a use that has many more similar examples that people who complain about it wont think twice about using. >Otherwise I'll just assume that since they wrote a lot, there's going to be some mediocre bits and padding in it. For The thing is question wasn't about it being good literature, but about it being legitimate use of language. It was more: "prominent writers use it too, not just ignorant buffoon as idiots claim" and less: "it belongs to good literature". As for it carrying any signal, that's not something that can be refuted. It ALWAYS carries the signal of "emphasis" over the same phrase without it.
    - PavlovsCat 11y ago
      http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/08/literally/ http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/08/literally/ > It comes down to that oft-spoke mantra – language changes. Our job is to document that for better or for worse. Except for us, there is no worse. We have to look at language objectively and dispassionately. That's a bit like the difference between a helper taking blood samples and the doctor, not to mention a loved one. Linguists can be lovers of language and philosophers, but they don't have to be, they just measure what's there. Language is made up by billions of people using it, and I consider my rejection of parts of it a curative effort. So I ask, with as much right as any other single human being using language: how does this particular "invention" move language forward? That other people might say it does, without anyone (I could find) giving an argument how it does, doesn't really help. Where, exactly, is "forward", here? Downstream? Even not gaming anymore, I noticed that "kids these days" tend to call low frame rates "lag". I still know what they mean, but I also consider it regression and impoverishment of language and more importantly thought. And while it's a silly example, I find it fascinating in a morbid way how things just get picked up and passed on. I observe similar dynamics with more serious things, like how words like "terrorism" or "war" get used. I think what it all really boils down to is that power in various doesn't (feel the) need to justify itself, and likewise people who say things most people have no problem with, don't ever have to stop to ask themselves what they are saying, and don't feel like they owe anyone going against the grain an explanation. And yes, nobody owes me one, but I'd still like one. When someone asks me "Did you meet Peter at the party?", and Peter happened to be the person opening the door when I rang the doorbell at the house where the party was, I might say "He was literally the first person I met there.". But even that "use" is just because we've gotten so used to not meaning what we say how we say it, having to flag when we do. > As for it carrying any signal, that's not something that can be refuted. It ALWAYS carries the signal of "emphasis" over the same phrase without it. Emphasis can mean two different things. Saying "I don't care about your sports car" vs. "I don't care about your sports car" could mean that the speaker cares about something, it's just not the sports car. It's emphasis as in changing weights in relation to other weights. But then there is also simply being louder or gesturing more wildly, i.e. if "blown away" means "very impressed", then "literally blown away" means "really very impressed", right? But when we start "emphasizing" things that didn't actually happen the way we phrase them by going out of our way to say that they did happen the way we phrased them, we might end up having to use "actually literally" or something to flag the things that indeed happen the way we phrased them. Rinse, repeat, and I still don't see the point of even the first iteration. Earlier I read a sentence I consider very true and important: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/dec/04/column-change-life-corporate-lies-oliver-burkeman http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/dec/04/column-c... > When daily life requires turning a blind eye to the falsity of countless things we’re told, it weakens the power of language to sort truth from fiction. This also applies to all the little exaggerations and cutesy things. They do add up. And yes, this is old as dirt, just like doublethink predates "Nineteen Eighty-Four". Thinking and talking clearly and truthfully is exceedingly rare, I myself can only do it in short bursts when I concentrate. But that doesn't mean it's not generally something to strive or, or to take lightly. We inherit and modify the tool set future generations will start out their attempts to grasp reality and/or rationalize their own atrocities with, depending on how well we do our job. We, like the previous generations, are abysmal at it. That someone has a brain fart is one thing, but that it then has centuries of tradition and makes it into the dictionary, that's our collective fault, and that everybody is in on it doesn't justify it in my books. That's just one more for the pile, really. There are so many things "most people do" or "most people are fine with", and they're not fine. And even supposed hypocrisy, i.e. me making those mistakes myself, doesn't change that, whenever I do catch such things, I edit it. And if I had more time, this comment would be a lot shorter :P

by krisdol 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

>It's a term that has two accepted meanings, the other meaning being the total opposite of the intended, making it a meaningless "flavor" word. No, it's a term that has two accepted meanings that context makes perfectly clear which one was meant. Like "bad" (which can mean actually bad, or "great" as slang, both meanings in the dictionary). In fact many common terms have that characteristic, including fast ("moving quickly" or "fixed in place"), dust (which also means removing dust), etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym >Leave it out of phrases from now on, and the phrase will not lose any meaning or clarity. It's not meant to add to the core meaning of a phrase. It's meant to emphasize something in it. Without it the literal (sic) meaning would be the same, but the intended impact of the phrase would be lessened. It's like: "I don't care for your bonus" and "I don't care for your fucking bonus". The meaning would be the same without the expletive but the intended emphasis and impact lost. Something that Dickens and Shakespeare (who used it that way among tons of others) understood.

PavlovsCat 11y ago
Quote Shakespeare and/or Dickens so I can see whether their use of that word improves the passages, or carries any signal at all for that matter. Otherwise I'll just assume that since they wrote a lot, there's going to be some mediocre bits and padding in it. For all I know, they might simply not have paid attention.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Alternatively you can just ask any linguist, and they'll assure you using "literally" for effect is not just ages old and used by lots of prominent writers, but also an absolutely legitimate use of language, typical of the inventiveness that moves language forward, and a use that has many more similar examples that people who complain about it wont think twice about using. >Otherwise I'll just assume that since they wrote a lot, there's going to be some mediocre bits and padding in it. For The thing is question wasn't about it being good literature, but about it being legitimate use of language. It was more: "prominent writers use it too, not just ignorant buffoon as idiots claim" and less: "it belongs to good literature". As for it carrying any signal, that's not something that can be refuted. It ALWAYS carries the signal of "emphasis" over the same phrase without it.
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/08/literally/ http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/08/literally/ > It comes down to that oft-spoke mantra – language changes. Our job is to document that for better or for worse. Except for us, there is no worse. We have to look at language objectively and dispassionately. That's a bit like the difference between a helper taking blood samples and the doctor, not to mention a loved one. Linguists can be lovers of language and philosophers, but they don't have to be, they just measure what's there. Language is made up by billions of people using it, and I consider my rejection of parts of it a curative effort. So I ask, with as much right as any other single human being using language: how does this particular "invention" move language forward? That other people might say it does, without anyone (I could find) giving an argument how it does, doesn't really help. Where, exactly, is "forward", here? Downstream? Even not gaming anymore, I noticed that "kids these days" tend to call low frame rates "lag". I still know what they mean, but I also consider it regression and impoverishment of language and more importantly thought. And while it's a silly example, I find it fascinating in a morbid way how things just get picked up and passed on. I observe similar dynamics with more serious things, like how words like "terrorism" or "war" get used. I think what it all really boils down to is that power in various doesn't (feel the) need to justify itself, and likewise people who say things most people have no problem with, don't ever have to stop to ask themselves what they are saying, and don't feel like they owe anyone going against the grain an explanation. And yes, nobody owes me one, but I'd still like one. When someone asks me "Did you meet Peter at the party?", and Peter happened to be the person opening the door when I rang the doorbell at the house where the party was, I might say "He was literally the first person I met there.". But even that "use" is just because we've gotten so used to not meaning what we say how we say it, having to flag when we do. > As for it carrying any signal, that's not something that can be refuted. It ALWAYS carries the signal of "emphasis" over the same phrase without it. Emphasis can mean two different things. Saying "I don't care about your sports car" vs. "I don't care about your sports car" could mean that the speaker cares about something, it's just not the sports car. It's emphasis as in changing weights in relation to other weights. But then there is also simply being louder or gesturing more wildly, i.e. if "blown away" means "very impressed", then "literally blown away" means "really very impressed", right? But when we start "emphasizing" things that didn't actually happen the way we phrase them by going out of our way to say that they did happen the way we phrased them, we might end up having to use "actually literally" or something to flag the things that indeed happen the way we phrased them. Rinse, repeat, and I still don't see the point of even the first iteration. Earlier I read a sentence I consider very true and important: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/dec/04/column-change-life-corporate-lies-oliver-burkeman http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/dec/04/column-c... > When daily life requires turning a blind eye to the falsity of countless things we’re told, it weakens the power of language to sort truth from fiction. This also applies to all the little exaggerations and cutesy things. They do add up. And yes, this is old as dirt, just like doublethink predates "Nineteen Eighty-Four". Thinking and talking clearly and truthfully is exceedingly rare, I myself can only do it in short bursts when I concentrate. But that doesn't mean it's not generally something to strive or, or to take lightly. We inherit and modify the tool set future generations will start out their attempts to grasp reality and/or rationalize their own atrocities with, depending on how well we do our job. We, like the previous generations, are abysmal at it. That someone has a brain fart is one thing, but that it then has centuries of tradition and makes it into the dictionary, that's our collective fault, and that everybody is in on it doesn't justify it in my books. That's just one more for the pile, really. There are so many things "most people do" or "most people are fine with", and they're not fine. And even supposed hypocrisy, i.e. me making those mistakes myself, doesn't change that, whenever I do catch such things, I edit it. And if I had more time, this comment would be a lot shorter :P