5 ms·

This is a classic pedantic English correction, the type which snarky English teachers like to harp on. It's in the same ballpark as the folks who badger the "i

This is a classic pedantic English correction, the type which snarky English teachers like to harp on. It's in the same ballpark as the folks who badger the "incorrect" use of "literally" (even though the definition literally includes "figuratively" now).

version_five 4y ago
I disagree, because wherefore is basically an archaic word that people use to conjure up images of Shakespearean English. It's usage hasn't really evolved in common language, it has stopped and gets used for an olde timey feel. Contrast this with "begs the question" which is still used and, at least 15 years ago, still had pedants up in arms when it's usage didn't match the original meaning
- jfengel 4y ago
  It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question". But since actual question-begging is just met by "you didn't answer my question", it's not too big a loss.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question" It hasn't changed, it has expanded to include an transitive form which is a rationalization and folk-etymology of the intransitive form (whose obsolete use of every word except “the” makes it otherwise stand out in modern English.) The mediocre-translation-from-Latin-to-obsoletr-English intransitive form makes sense when viewed as (though obviously this isn't the real etymology) a variation of the more transitive form where the omitted object is “the question of the justification of the original claim”. “Purists” objecting to the newer form which is structurally distinct and thus impossible to confuse with the older form, creating no ambiguity of meaning, are just showing a lack of understanding of the structure of English.
Cpoll 4y ago
So what do I do when I literally mean literally?
- starkd 4y ago
  Try really.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Actually. But I think context still rules the day when using literally. But I don't think literally is actually used incorrectly all that much. It's commonly used as hyperbole. "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse" is hyperbole. "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse" is just a more extreme hyperbole. Most cases where I see literally used in the more modern sense, it is rarely used in an ambiguous way. "I literally just died" will never mean that you just passed away and are now announcing it to everyone.
starkd 4y ago
If there were no snarky English teachers and pedantics to point this stuff out, think of all the knowledge that would be lost. The English language has a rich history and expansive vocabulary.
- codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
  Pedants ;)
dragonwriter 4y ago
Dictionary definitions of “literally” that list “figuratively” do a poor job of capturing the figurative use of “literally”, which is an intensifier for when the sentence without the modifier would (in the speakers mind) already be implicitly figurative; it does not denote that the comparison is figurative, it intensifies the already figurative xomparison.

version_five 4y ago

I disagree, because wherefore is basically an archaic word that people use to conjure up images of Shakespearean English. It's usage hasn't really evolved in common language, it has stopped and gets used for an olde timey feel. Contrast this with "begs the question" which is still used and, at least 15 years ago, still had pedants up in arms when it's usage didn't match the original meaning

jfengel 4y ago
It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question". But since actual question-begging is just met by "you didn't answer my question", it's not too big a loss.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It's too bad that "begs the question" has changed to match a phrase we already had, "raises the question" It hasn't changed, it has expanded to include an transitive form which is a rationalization and folk-etymology of the intransitive form (whose obsolete use of every word except “the” makes it otherwise stand out in modern English.) The mediocre-translation-from-Latin-to-obsoletr-English intransitive form makes sense when viewed as (though obviously this isn't the real etymology) a variation of the more transitive form where the omitted object is “the question of the justification of the original claim”. “Purists” objecting to the newer form which is structurally distinct and thus impossible to confuse with the older form, creating no ambiguity of meaning, are just showing a lack of understanding of the structure of English.

Cpoll 4y ago

So what do I do when I literally mean literally?

starkd 4y ago
Try really.
jjeaff 4y ago
Actually. But I think context still rules the day when using literally. But I don't think literally is actually used incorrectly all that much. It's commonly used as hyperbole. "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse" is hyperbole. "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse" is just a more extreme hyperbole. Most cases where I see literally used in the more modern sense, it is rarely used in an ambiguous way. "I literally just died" will never mean that you just passed away and are now announcing it to everyone.

starkd 4y ago

If there were no snarky English teachers and pedantics to point this stuff out, think of all the knowledge that would be lost. The English language has a rich history and expansive vocabulary.

codemonkey-zeta 4y ago
Pedants ;)

dragonwriter 4y ago

Dictionary definitions of “literally” that list “figuratively” do a poor job of capturing the figurative use of “literally”, which is an intensifier for when the sentence without the modifier would (in the speakers mind) already be implicitly figurative; it does not denote that the comparison is figurative, it intensifies the already figurative xomparison.