2 ms·
I hear that argument a lot, but I rarely see a case where someone notes "wrong" usage — like you did — where there's actually any ambiguity. Like when people co
by lillesvin 10y ago
I hear that argument a lot, but I rarely see a case where someone notes "wrong" usage — like you did — where there's actually any ambiguity. Like when people complain about "literally" being used as an intensifier. I doubt they're confused if the speaker e.g. actually died of embarrassment or if they're just using it as an intensifier.
Language has so much redundancy that a slightly different understanding of a single word in a sentence rarely is of any consequence.
- lisper 10y agoAgain, everything you say is is true (which, BTW, is why I prefaced my comment with "Just FYI..."). But the sarcasm/ironic-humor confusion is very prevalent even among native speakers, and in a different set of circumstances it could cause confusion or worse because the implied stance of sarcasm is the exact opposite of ironic humor. Also, HN is a public forum, and comments are read not only by their respondees but by lurkers as well, some of whom may not be native speakers and who might therefore appreciate having some of the subtleties of the language pointed out to them.
- WhitneyLand 10y agoAfter reading all the comments here, you still stand behind your original pedantic comment as being appropriate and productive? Fascinating. If you knew the OP was more likely to feel insulted than to feel helped, that wouldn't have changed your action?
- lisper 10y agoWell, we don't have to speculate. The OP weighed in: > Just to be clear, I quite liked Lister's [sic] note as well. So yes.