4 ms·

Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you. Literally is a contronym and depending on which linguist you ask, it's actually two w

by Nadya 8y ago

Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you. Literally is a contronym and depending on which linguist you ask, it's actually two words that happen to be spelled and sound the same but each has their own meaning - a homonym. Whether literally is a contronym or a homonym is up to the linguist you ask - some might happily say it is both! When you clip something - are you attaching it or cutting it off? When you scan something are you reading word for word or are you skim reading? When you set an argument on the table are you presenting it or shelving it for later? If your actions are transparent - are they invisible or obvious? When you puzzle over a puzzle you're solving a problem. The most wonderful thing about languages, from a linguistic anthropological view, is precisely how they change over time as the living generations shape and mold language to their liking.

bradknowles 8y ago
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
- dllthomas 8y ago
  Further, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
dllthomas 8y ago
> depending on which linguist you ask, it's actually two words that happen to be spelled and sound the same but each has their own meaning In this case, I'm pretty sure those linguists are wrong. I'm not being prescriptivist, and it's certainly possible that there's a usage I've not encountered established somewhere out there in the wild, but every use that I've seen pointed at as "using 'literally' wrong" reads to me as simply ordinary hyperbole. "It's so figuratively X it's almost literally X, but of course we understand it's still figurative." I've never seen an example where someone added the word "literally" to communicate that the utterance is figurative. We shouldn't call that another meaning for "literally" any more than we say that "miles" has a secondary meaning of "tens of feet" because someone said "I've walked miles around this store looking for you!"
explainplease 8y ago
> Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you. As I said in the previous comment, "English is not a person." Let's look at a good source: Webster: 1. "According to the primary and natural import of words; not figuratively; as, a man and his wife can not be literally one flesh." (emphasis added) No comment required. 2. "With close adherence to words; word by word." For this definition, the given example helps: "So wild and ungovernable a poet can not be translated literally. --Dryden." Clearly this definition is not the opposite of the first. > When you clip something - are you attaching it or cutting it off? As I said in the previous comment, there are some words that have multiple, contradictory meanings. "Literally" is not one of them; by its nature, it cannot be. If you disagree with me, you should argue this point rather than cite irrelevant examples. > The most wonderful thing about languages, from a linguistic anthropological view, is precisely how they change over time as the living generations shape and mold language to their liking. Linguistic anthropology cannot confer wonderfulness on anything, for it merely observes and catalogs; it does not pass judgment. My argument does not lie within its purview. The problem arises as a living generation loses touch with reality, and as certain entities strive to confuse it by muddling their language. It's not important whether "table" means "to consider" or "to not consider." It is important whether "literally" still means "literally", especially in this day and age, as the pace of change is ever increasing. As fragile, finite, foolish humans, we desperately need solid handles on reality to cling to. Those who would encourage us to render the word useless are doing a disservice to us all. You would do well to not be one of them.
- Nadya 8y ago
  >As I said in the previous comment, there are some words that have multiple, contradictory meanings. "Literally" is not one of them; by its nature, it cannot be. If you disagree with me, you should argue this point rather than cite irrelevant examples. Literally is quite literally one of those words and you've yet to cite any reason why it isn't or can't be. You can't just cite one dictionary that you happen to agree with (Webster) while ignoring other dictionaries you don't (Oxford). Words don't have a nature - language is a man made construct and ultimately defined by cultures which are ever changing. Changing cultures directly results in changing languages. Words being adopted from one language to another is the direct result of mixing cultures. Words changing meaning is a direct result of a changing culture. Languages are a living construct - with the exception of conlangs - nobody sat down and designed and defined entire languages and, arguably, even conlangs eventually adapt to their culture over time so being designed doesn't prevent it from change over time. There is a reason there is an "Olde English".

by Nadya 8y ago

bradknowles 8y ago

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

dllthomas 8y ago
Further, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

dllthomas 8y ago

> depending on which linguist you ask, it's actually two words that happen to be spelled and sound the same but each has their own meaning In this case, I'm pretty sure those linguists are wrong. I'm not being prescriptivist, and it's certainly possible that there's a usage I've not encountered established somewhere out there in the wild, but every use that I've seen pointed at as "using 'literally' wrong" reads to me as simply ordinary hyperbole. "It's so figuratively X it's almost literally X, but of course we understand it's still figurative." I've never seen an example where someone added the word "literally" to communicate that the utterance is figurative. We shouldn't call that another meaning for "literally" any more than we say that "miles" has a secondary meaning of "tens of feet" because someone said "I've walked miles around this store looking for you!"

explainplease 8y ago

> Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you. As I said in the previous comment, "English is not a person." Let's look at a good source: Webster: 1. "According to the primary and natural import of words; not figuratively; as, a man and his wife can not be literally one flesh." (emphasis added) No comment required. 2. "With close adherence to words; word by word." For this definition, the given example helps: "So wild and ungovernable a poet can not be translated literally. --Dryden." Clearly this definition is not the opposite of the first. > When you clip something - are you attaching it or cutting it off? As I said in the previous comment, there are some words that have multiple, contradictory meanings. "Literally" is not one of them; by its nature, it cannot be. If you disagree with me, you should argue this point rather than cite irrelevant examples. > The most wonderful thing about languages, from a linguistic anthropological view, is precisely how they change over time as the living generations shape and mold language to their liking. Linguistic anthropology cannot confer wonderfulness on anything, for it merely observes and catalogs; it does not pass judgment. My argument does not lie within its purview. The problem arises as a living generation loses touch with reality, and as certain entities strive to confuse it by muddling their language. It's not important whether "table" means "to consider" or "to not consider." It is important whether "literally" still means "literally", especially in this day and age, as the pace of change is ever increasing. As fragile, finite, foolish humans, we desperately need solid handles on reality to cling to. Those who would encourage us to render the word useless are doing a disservice to us all. You would do well to not be one of them.

Nadya 8y ago
>As I said in the previous comment, there are some words that have multiple, contradictory meanings. "Literally" is not one of them; by its nature, it cannot be. If you disagree with me, you should argue this point rather than cite irrelevant examples. Literally is quite literally one of those words and you've yet to cite any reason why it isn't or can't be. You can't just cite one dictionary that you happen to agree with (Webster) while ignoring other dictionaries you don't (Oxford). Words don't have a nature - language is a man made construct and ultimately defined by cultures which are ever changing. Changing cultures directly results in changing languages. Words being adopted from one language to another is the direct result of mixing cultures. Words changing meaning is a direct result of a changing culture. Languages are a living construct - with the exception of conlangs - nobody sat down and designed and defined entire languages and, arguably, even conlangs eventually adapt to their culture over time so being designed doesn't prevent it from change over time. There is a reason there is an "Olde English".