6 ms·

Nobody does that. I've never seen someone correct "fewer" to "less" or seen someone get scorned for using "literally" to mean "as actually happened". Only the o

by kmm 9y ago

Nobody does that. I've never seen someone correct "fewer" to "less" or seen someone get scorned for using "literally" to mean "as actually happened". Only the other way around happens. When people say "go along with it", they're just saying the new usage should be accepted as well, not completely supercede the older one.

_0ffh 9y ago
"they're just saying the new usage should be accepted as well, not completely supercede the older one" You can argue that accepting both meanings may lead to dangerous miscommunication, so it's vital that one interpretation supersedes [sic] the other. Some people who are on board with that argument are also champions of new word interpretations. Example regarding the word "factoid" right there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9358604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9358604 "Nobody does that. [...] Only the other way around happens." If a new meaning pops up for an old word, at what point does correcting someone's mistake become being a language nazi? When one person decides that a word now has a new meaning? One per cent of the population? Ten? I honestly don't know, but as long as it's not clear that the accepted meaning has really changed, I call "the other way around" plainly "correcting a mistake". I'd rather not enable people who will stick to the first thing they have "learned" about a topic, no matter if it turns out to be mistaken.
- resu_nimda 9y ago
  Given the nature of your post, the incorrect usage of [sic] really stands out... There aren't really any set-in-stone rules about language, the "accepted meaning" of something depends entirely on who you ask. Personally I am more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist, as long as I can understand what the person means I'm fine, I might even encourage "incorrect" usages if they are funny or somehow apt. On another note, I like that you recalled and found a seemingly unimportant comment of yours from over two years ago that related to changing word usage.
  - _0ffh 9y ago
    As I hoped I had made clear, I'm also more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist. And I'm not against being creative with words now and then. I just wouldn't insist on every one of them becoming the new norm. My criticism is that even when mainstream usage is divided (so descriptivism will not take you very far), people who argue for changing the meaning tend to argue unfairly that seemingly only the people on their side of the divide count. All the others are just boring old prescriptivists. I, on the opposite, would rather go with established use as long as it's not clear that the accepted meaning has really changed. About sic btw, it indicates that the spelling of a word is exactly the intended one. Even if that spelling is /not/ wrong (afaik). It was meant to gently draw attention to that spelling without giving offence.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  I was not until now aware that "factoid" could mean "small fact", so the person you were replying to was clearly mistaken.
- DanBC 9y ago
  > You can argue that accepting both meanings may lead to dangerous miscommunication When could using "less" instead of "fewer" cause danger?
SilasX 9y ago
I think there's a big diffference between correcting a confusing usage vs just adhering to rules to check off the right boxes. No one is confused by hearing "less" vs "fewer"; but with "literally" it's a very different story. It's reasonable IMHO to protect clarity by objecting to uses that ... well, make a word useless by making it harder to parse which of two contradictory meanings was intended. And that applies double if the word exists for precisely that kind of disambiguation!
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  "Literally" being used in both senses goes back a long, long way, though. My take is that when used in the straightforward meaning, it is usually pretty clear, and when used with the contradictory meaning, it is also pretty clear. It COULD be confusing if you use "literally" to mean "figuratively" and your very purpose is to clarify that you do not mean the thing itself literally ... but that's not what happens. The figurative use of "literally" is almost always in the context of exaggerating a metaphor. Example: "I literally died laughing" ... it's already a false statement, being heightened by the claim that it is literally true. Usually, if you see the word "literally" applying to something that's not literally true, somewhere nearby a heightened metaphor is lurking.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    His face was literally blue.
    - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
      Could mean: - literally blue (painted blue or colored some other way) - literally blue (skin blueish from lack of oxygen) - he was really cold or something (exaggerated metaphor) Or probably other stuff. Like most things, you need more context to determine the relationship between the statement and reality. None of these meanings depend on the word "literally" it can disambiguate between two related statements but nothing in language can escape the idea of being used in a metaphorical context. It always bugs me when people "correct" this totally fine use of language. We don't freak out nearly so much about similar words like actually, really, totally, completely, absolutely, etc being used in the same way. It's no big deal. Metaphor is a core part of our language.

by kmm 9y ago

_0ffh 9y ago

"they're just saying the new usage should be accepted as well, not completely supercede the older one" You can argue that accepting both meanings may lead to dangerous miscommunication, so it's vital that one interpretation supersedes [sic] the other. Some people who are on board with that argument are also champions of new word interpretations. Example regarding the word "factoid" right there: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9358604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9358604 "Nobody does that. [...] Only the other way around happens." If a new meaning pops up for an old word, at what point does correcting someone's mistake become being a language nazi? When one person decides that a word now has a new meaning? One per cent of the population? Ten? I honestly don't know, but as long as it's not clear that the accepted meaning has really changed, I call "the other way around" plainly "correcting a mistake". I'd rather not enable people who will stick to the first thing they have "learned" about a topic, no matter if it turns out to be mistaken.

resu_nimda 9y ago
Given the nature of your post, the incorrect usage of [sic] really stands out... There aren't really any set-in-stone rules about language, the "accepted meaning" of something depends entirely on who you ask. Personally I am more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist, as long as I can understand what the person means I'm fine, I might even encourage "incorrect" usages if they are funny or somehow apt. On another note, I like that you recalled and found a seemingly unimportant comment of yours from over two years ago that related to changing word usage.
- _0ffh 9y ago
  As I hoped I had made clear, I'm also more of a descriptivist than a prescriptivist. And I'm not against being creative with words now and then. I just wouldn't insist on every one of them becoming the new norm. My criticism is that even when mainstream usage is divided (so descriptivism will not take you very far), people who argue for changing the meaning tend to argue unfairly that seemingly only the people on their side of the divide count. All the others are just boring old prescriptivists. I, on the opposite, would rather go with established use as long as it's not clear that the accepted meaning has really changed. About sic btw, it indicates that the spelling of a word is exactly the intended one. Even if that spelling is /not/ wrong (afaik). It was meant to gently draw attention to that spelling without giving offence.
ScottBurson 9y ago
I was not until now aware that "factoid" could mean "small fact", so the person you were replying to was clearly mistaken.
DanBC 9y ago
> You can argue that accepting both meanings may lead to dangerous miscommunication When could using "less" instead of "fewer" cause danger?

SilasX 9y ago

I think there's a big diffference between correcting a confusing usage vs just adhering to rules to check off the right boxes. No one is confused by hearing "less" vs "fewer"; but with "literally" it's a very different story. It's reasonable IMHO to protect clarity by objecting to uses that ... well, make a word useless by making it harder to parse which of two contradictory meanings was intended. And that applies double if the word exists for precisely that kind of disambiguation!

oddlyaromatic 9y ago
"Literally" being used in both senses goes back a long, long way, though. My take is that when used in the straightforward meaning, it is usually pretty clear, and when used with the contradictory meaning, it is also pretty clear. It COULD be confusing if you use "literally" to mean "figuratively" and your very purpose is to clarify that you do not mean the thing itself literally ... but that's not what happens. The figurative use of "literally" is almost always in the context of exaggerating a metaphor. Example: "I literally died laughing" ... it's already a false statement, being heightened by the claim that it is literally true. Usually, if you see the word "literally" applying to something that's not literally true, somewhere nearby a heightened metaphor is lurking.
- SilasX 9y ago
  His face was literally blue.
  - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
    Could mean: - literally blue (painted blue or colored some other way) - literally blue (skin blueish from lack of oxygen) - he was really cold or something (exaggerated metaphor) Or probably other stuff. Like most things, you need more context to determine the relationship between the statement and reality. None of these meanings depend on the word "literally" it can disambiguate between two related statements but nothing in language can escape the idea of being used in a metaphorical context. It always bugs me when people "correct" this totally fine use of language. We don't freak out nearly so much about similar words like actually, really, totally, completely, absolutely, etc being used in the same way. It's no big deal. Metaphor is a core part of our language.