5 ms·

Both adverse and averse are used to indicate opposition. Adverse, usually applied to things, often means "harmful" or "unfavorable" and is used in instances lik

Both adverse and averse are used to indicate opposition. Adverse, usually applied to things, often means "harmful" or "unfavorable" and is used in instances like "adverse effects from the medication." Averse usually applies to people and means "having a feeling of distaste or dislike." It is often used with to or from to describe someone having an aversion to something specific, such as "he is averse to taking risks" or "he is risk averse."

nerdponx 5y ago
I appreciate that you're trying to be charitable to the author, but this sounds more like a retroactive justification than a new and valid usage. Yes, I know that plenty of our words today evolved out of mistakes, solecisms, misspellings, etc. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to be kind-of correct.
- oarsinsync 5y ago
  > Yes, I know that plenty of our words today evolved out of mistakes, solecisms, misspellings, etc. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to be kind-of correct. This is literally the worst misuse of the language. (This is a joke about the way the word literally has evolved, badly)
  - fknorangesite 5y ago
    > the word literally has evolved, badly How do you feel about the words "really" and "very"? I never really understood this fad of harping on the metaphorical usage of "literally" - it's hardly a new development: > The use of literally in a fashion that is hyperbolic or metaphoric is not new—evidence of this use dates back to 1769. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
    - nerdponx 5y ago
      What's different about "literally" is that people mostly do know what it means, and it's more of a rhetorical device or figure of speech than a simple mistake. As the article you quoted says, it's "hyperbolic" and "metaphorical", not solecistic.

nerdponx 5y ago

I appreciate that you're trying to be charitable to the author, but this sounds more like a retroactive justification than a new and valid usage. Yes, I know that plenty of our words today evolved out of mistakes, solecisms, misspellings, etc. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to be kind-of correct.

oarsinsync 5y ago
> Yes, I know that plenty of our words today evolved out of mistakes, solecisms, misspellings, etc. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to be kind-of correct. This is literally the worst misuse of the language. (This is a joke about the way the word literally has evolved, badly)
- fknorangesite 5y ago
  > the word literally has evolved, badly How do you feel about the words "really" and "very"? I never really understood this fad of harping on the metaphorical usage of "literally" - it's hardly a new development: > The use of literally in a fashion that is hyperbolic or metaphoric is not new—evidence of this use dates back to 1769. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    What's different about "literally" is that people mostly do know what it means, and it's more of a rhetorical device or figure of speech than a simple mistake. As the article you quoted says, it's "hyperbolic" and "metaphorical", not solecistic.