3 ms·
> I've no interest in preserving some historic or literary register in aspic That sounds like what you're doing with trying to lock down "literally". Hoist w
by oh_sigh 5y ago
> I've no interest in preserving some historic or literary register in aspic
That sounds like what you're doing with trying to lock down "literally".
Hoist would be "blow up"/"thrown into the air". He was blown up by his own bomb.
That leaves the question of what English you find actually "correct", and why you chose that English, rather than the English spoken 30 years before or after that correct English.
- denton-scratch 5y ago> That sounds like what you're doing with trying to lock down "literally". The "literally" thing is particularly egregious, because the new definition is the opposite of the old one. Look, I dig metaphor; I'd be OK with "literally" being used to mean "metaphorically" if it was done occasionally and ironically. When it becomes the preferred word to replace "very", it's natural to resist. > He was blown up by his own bomb. Oh I see, thanks; that's bewildered me since forever. It makes my point, though; Shakespeare may be a marvellous composer of iambic pentameters, but he's not a good reference for modern english. > what English you find actually "correct" The correct register to adopt depends on the circumstances. As it happens, I never adopt a register in which "literally" means "figuratively". In speech I use a vernacular register (and I curse more than I would prefer). But in HN comments, I think it's often (not always) helpful to try to avoid ambiguity, and use language precisely. Not everyone here understands puns and allusions in English.