4 ms·

Words have meanings, and the meaning of literally is also emphasis. Bad prescriptivism.

gwd 7y ago
> Words have meanings, and the meaning of literally is also emphasis. Bad prescriptivism. The insistence that simple emphasis is a valid use for "literally" -- and quoting M-W or the OED to support your case -- is just as prescriptive the insistence that it doesn't. Language is socially constructed by the people using it; we all "vote" by using it, and by policing its use. So let me ask you this: Do you want "literally" to be a meaningless emphasis word (and thus lose its ability to specify "this actually happened")? Or do you want "literally" to mean "I am not speaking figuratively, this thing actually happened"? If you want the former, then I disagree with you, but sure, go ahead and use your "vote" to police people objecting to "literally" meaning "figuratively". But if you want the latter, then join me in insisting that it means "this actually happened".
- iikoolpp 7y ago
  What is this shit response? > The insistence that simple emphasis is a valid use for "literally" -- and quoting M-W or the OED to support your case -- is just as prescriptive the insistence that it doesn't. It's not prescriptivist because I'm describing the meaning it is currently ascribed to. > Do you want "literally" to be a meaningless emphasis word (and thus lose its ability to specify "this actually happened")? Yes? I use the language everyone else uses, not the Pure language that everyone decides is the only version in the world the second they enter their 20s. Why are you dying on this hill? Why are you mad that people are deviating from your One True Ideal of what you think the language should be? It's not like there aren't other words that you can substitute in; it's whining for the sake of whining against language change. Not to mention, you're dying on the hill against a language change that already happened hundreds of years ago.

gwd 7y ago

> Words have meanings, and the meaning of literally is also emphasis. Bad prescriptivism. The insistence that simple emphasis is a valid use for "literally" -- and quoting M-W or the OED to support your case -- is just as prescriptive the insistence that it doesn't. Language is socially constructed by the people using it; we all "vote" by using it, and by policing its use. So let me ask you this: Do you want "literally" to be a meaningless emphasis word (and thus lose its ability to specify "this actually happened")? Or do you want "literally" to mean "I am not speaking figuratively, this thing actually happened"? If you want the former, then I disagree with you, but sure, go ahead and use your "vote" to police people objecting to "literally" meaning "figuratively". But if you want the latter, then join me in insisting that it means "this actually happened".

iikoolpp 7y ago
What is this shit response? > The insistence that simple emphasis is a valid use for "literally" -- and quoting M-W or the OED to support your case -- is just as prescriptive the insistence that it doesn't. It's not prescriptivist because I'm describing the meaning it is currently ascribed to. > Do you want "literally" to be a meaningless emphasis word (and thus lose its ability to specify "this actually happened")? Yes? I use the language everyone else uses, not the Pure language that everyone decides is the only version in the world the second they enter their 20s. Why are you dying on this hill? Why are you mad that people are deviating from your One True Ideal of what you think the language should be? It's not like there aren't other words that you can substitute in; it's whining for the sake of whining against language change. Not to mention, you're dying on the hill against a language change that already happened hundreds of years ago.