5 ms·

It's a legal term, the legal definition is that robbery involves physical force or fear: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/01/whats-the-difference-between-b

It's a legal term, the legal definition is that robbery involves physical force or fear: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/01/whats-the-difference-between-burglary-robbery-and-theft.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2015/01/whats-the-differenc...

Retric 9y ago
As this is not a court room we are not so bound.
- haberman 9y ago
  Merriam-Webster also added a definition for "literally" that means "virtually." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally So sure, you could cite a dictionary as license to use words in misleading ways because other (confused) people have made an unhelpful definition commonplace. But some people actually care about using words to convey meaning, and care about the difference between "robbery" and "theft."
  - chc 9y ago
    The "difference" between robbery and theft exists primarily in legal jargon, and was never sharply defined in common usage. Regardless of your distaste for "literally," the dictionary is a much better source on colloquial usage than the penal code.
  - burkaman 9y ago
    Literally does mean virtually now. If you care about using words to convey meaning, you should care what other people think words mean. What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you.
    - haberman 9y ago
      If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. > What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you. You don't think I can find a single other person who agrees with me?
      - burkaman 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples "cleave" and "sanction" are probably the most familiar examples here.
        Retric 9y ago
        Off as in "The alarm went off" is another great example. You can tell the state changed, but not if it started or stopped.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. First, this is wrong; many words have multiple meanings some of which are diametrically opposed; they still have meaning, though it may take awareness of context to interpret the correct meaning. Second, its irrelevant; the different meanings of “literally” are not opposites, though the figurative use (which does not, contrary to some descriptions, mean same as “figuratively”) is often presented incorrectly in a manner which suggests that. The figurative meaning is a qualitative intensifier applied to another figurative description which the speaker expects is clearly figurative from context, not a description which communicated that that use is figurative rather than literal.
        haberman 9y ago
        The use of "literally" is only necessary in contexts where it is in question whether the meaning is literal or not. So it's hardly sufficient to say that we can infer from context whether the speaker's meaning is "clearly figurative", since that is exactly the ambiguity that the word "literally" is used to resolve.
    - wutbrodo 9y ago
      > Literally does mean virtually now. : ( I don't disagree with you, and I get that prescriptivism is a losing battle (and the wrong battle, IMO), but this one bothers me, because we actually _lost_ expressive power.
      - burkaman 9y ago
        No we didn't. Exaggeration is a normal part of language, and every strong-sounding word will be "misused" for effect sometimes. "This heat is killing me", "I'm in love with this ice cream", "I swear to god...", etc. It's almost always clear which version of "literally" someone is using, and I suspect the exaggerated usage is as old as the word itself.
        wutbrodo 9y ago
        > It's almost always clear which version of "literally" someone is using None of these examples are relevant. > This heat is killing me No ambiguity in the misuse here, since you would literally be the first person who had ever talked to the living dead. > I'm in love with this ice cream "In love" isn't well-defined. How is this even a misuse? > I swear to god Again, how is this a misuse? You might argue that people swear to god too casually, but that's a far cry from somehow claiming that you're certain that the person doesn't _actually_ mean they're swearing to god. By contrast, I've already personally come across cases where people used the word literally and were misunderstood as meaning "a lot". On more than one occasion!
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Retric 9y ago

As this is not a court room we are not so bound.

haberman 9y ago
Merriam-Webster also added a definition for "literally" that means "virtually." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally So sure, you could cite a dictionary as license to use words in misleading ways because other (confused) people have made an unhelpful definition commonplace. But some people actually care about using words to convey meaning, and care about the difference between "robbery" and "theft."
- chc 9y ago
  The "difference" between robbery and theft exists primarily in legal jargon, and was never sharply defined in common usage. Regardless of your distaste for "literally," the dictionary is a much better source on colloquial usage than the penal code.
- burkaman 9y ago
  Literally does mean virtually now. If you care about using words to convey meaning, you should care what other people think words mean. What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you.
  - haberman 9y ago
    If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. > What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you. You don't think I can find a single other person who agrees with me?
    - burkaman 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples "cleave" and "sanction" are probably the most familiar examples here.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Off as in "The alarm went off" is another great example. You can tell the state changed, but not if it started or stopped.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. First, this is wrong; many words have multiple meanings some of which are diametrically opposed; they still have meaning, though it may take awareness of context to interpret the correct meaning. Second, its irrelevant; the different meanings of “literally” are not opposites, though the figurative use (which does not, contrary to some descriptions, mean same as “figuratively”) is often presented incorrectly in a manner which suggests that. The figurative meaning is a qualitative intensifier applied to another figurative description which the speaker expects is clearly figurative from context, not a description which communicated that that use is figurative rather than literal.
      - haberman 9y ago
        The use of "literally" is only necessary in contexts where it is in question whether the meaning is literal or not. So it's hardly sufficient to say that we can infer from context whether the speaker's meaning is "clearly figurative", since that is exactly the ambiguity that the word "literally" is used to resolve.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    > Literally does mean virtually now. : ( I don't disagree with you, and I get that prescriptivism is a losing battle (and the wrong battle, IMO), but this one bothers me, because we actually _lost_ expressive power.
    - burkaman 9y ago
      No we didn't. Exaggeration is a normal part of language, and every strong-sounding word will be "misused" for effect sometimes. "This heat is killing me", "I'm in love with this ice cream", "I swear to god...", etc. It's almost always clear which version of "literally" someone is using, and I suspect the exaggerated usage is as old as the word itself.
      - wutbrodo 9y ago
        > It's almost always clear which version of "literally" someone is using None of these examples are relevant. > This heat is killing me No ambiguity in the misuse here, since you would literally be the first person who had ever talked to the living dead. > I'm in love with this ice cream "In love" isn't well-defined. How is this even a misuse? > I swear to god Again, how is this a misuse? You might argue that people swear to god too casually, but that's a far cry from somehow claiming that you're certain that the person doesn't _actually_ mean they're swearing to god. By contrast, I've already personally come across cases where people used the word literally and were misunderstood as meaning "a lot". On more than one occasion!

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]