2 ms·

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/08/literally/ http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/08/literally/ > It comes down to that oft-spoke mantra – language

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

coldtea 11y ago
>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. One problem is that you could say it with any previous form of the language. Tons of the words you take for granted and accept evolved in a similar way. So why is "literally" bad and "awful" (worthy of awe originally) ok? The only honest answer would be "because it happened before my time, and I was always used to that". A second problem is the question itself: "how does this particular "invention" move language forward?". If it's used by the masses (as opposed to being a random error by some person), then it moves language forward, period. Languages don't move forward by design, but organically, by people adopting this or that change or new structure. And for that to happen, the change needs to respond to some need. The need doesn't need to be rational and kosher. E.g. "That word the most elegant way to minimally convey such meaning". It just has to serve the purposes of what it's adopted for, namely to help speakers convey their message (including meta information like impatience, anger, emphasis, scorn, passive aggressiveness, affection, concern, etc). >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. The mistake here is that you have a preconceived notion of more detail translating to "better language" where the benefit in this case would be something else (e.g. succinctness or the ability to unify different but similar phenomena under a common term -- that is: abstraction.). Those are all legit benefits, and language needs to have mechanisms for that too (like we collapse all different kinds of cars, motorcycles etc into 'vehicles'). In this case, communication between gamers for such a trivial matter doesn't need much extra detail beyond "lag". OTOH, a team of game programmers would have a much expanded dictionary to discern between lag, low frame rates, various kinds of latency, etc. >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. The point of any iteration is that used language ("blown away") for example, loses its impact (intended impression), because people are used to hear it. When that happens you need to patch it with extra qualifiers to give the same strong impression that you want. But we're going too far: we don't need to justify it. As with anything else in language, the fact that it happens is justification enough. It's like evolution -- you can't say a previous form of a language/organism was "better", but what's better changes with the environment and the times. You could say that for individual organisms (individual speakers who misuse language in some ad-hoc personal way), since, but you can't criticize new _evolved_ forms of language as used by the masses.

coldtea 11y ago

>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. One problem is that you could say it with any previous form of the language. Tons of the words you take for granted and accept evolved in a similar way. So why is "literally" bad and "awful" (worthy of awe originally) ok? The only honest answer would be "because it happened before my time, and I was always used to that". A second problem is the question itself: "how does this particular "invention" move language forward?". If it's used by the masses (as opposed to being a random error by some person), then it moves language forward, period. Languages don't move forward by design, but organically, by people adopting this or that change or new structure. And for that to happen, the change needs to respond to some need. The need doesn't need to be rational and kosher. E.g. "That word the most elegant way to minimally convey such meaning". It just has to serve the purposes of what it's adopted for, namely to help speakers convey their message (including meta information like impatience, anger, emphasis, scorn, passive aggressiveness, affection, concern, etc). >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. The mistake here is that you have a preconceived notion of more detail translating to "better language" where the benefit in this case would be something else (e.g. succinctness or the ability to unify different but similar phenomena under a common term -- that is: abstraction.). Those are all legit benefits, and language needs to have mechanisms for that too (like we collapse all different kinds of cars, motorcycles etc into 'vehicles'). In this case, communication between gamers for such a trivial matter doesn't need much extra detail beyond "lag". OTOH, a team of game programmers would have a much expanded dictionary to discern between lag, low frame rates, various kinds of latency, etc. >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. The point of any iteration is that used language ("blown away") for example, loses its impact (intended impression), because people are used to hear it. When that happens you need to patch it with extra qualifiers to give the same strong impression that you want. But we're going too far: we don't need to justify it. As with anything else in language, the fact that it happens is justification enough. It's like evolution -- you can't say a previous form of a language/organism was "better", but what's better changes with the environment and the times. You could say that for individual organisms (individual speakers who misuse language in some ad-hoc personal way), since, but you can't criticize new _evolved_ forms of language as used by the masses.