5 ms·

The Nile is 2nd longest, for what it's worth, behind only the Amazon. And, to understate matters a little bit, it's in quite an arid region, so that its waters

The Nile is 2nd longest, for what it's worth, behind only the Amazon. And, to understate matters a little bit, it's in quite an arid region, so that its waters were quite literally the lifeblood of all Egyptian civilizations. The Yellow River -- which, for its part, is quite literally the cradle of Chinese civilization -- is in a very similar position. It's the 6th largest river by length, but 113th by flow rate. Perhaps, as others have just speculated, flow rate was once a lot higher, and now water is being diverted to agricultural and other projects, so that a much smaller fraction of it reaches the sea.

GavinMcG 4y ago
When you say “quite literally” you seem to mean “figuratively.” A river is not a cradle.
- jamincan 4y ago
  The use of "literally" in this context is so pervasive that any English dictionary will include it in its definition. This nit-picking is so pervasive that Merriam-Webster includes an FAQ on the words use. "Can literally mean figuratively? One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal"). Is the extended use of literally new? The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others. Is the extended use of literally slang? Among the meanings of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally)
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    You're not wrong, but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way. Most of the time, it's obvious from context what one means by 'literally' but not always. Why create extra ambiguity when there already exists other functional language constructs to express the same thought with clarity? It does make me wonder how much this happens in other languages, especially ones like French where there is an effort to keep the language from morphing too much, too quickly.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      It's not "deterioration" just change. Deterioration implies deviation from a natural, ideal, or perfect state, which languages simply do not have. This belief that the language is in decline and losing some ineffable beauty or value is older than english, in fact some of our oldest historical documents at all are versions of this lament. The language we speak now is the result of millennia of such "deterioration." Those language-control bodies that some countries have are somewhat a relic of before we had our current understanding of the mechanics of language use and how languages change over time. They can also be understood as a leftover tool from the european bootstrapping-nationstates era. Either way, those bodies may (but it's debatable) have some influence on the rate the language change, or what specific changes occur. But nowhere near as much as they purport to, maybe close to none at all.
    - knodi123 4y ago
      Eh. It's not a deterioration, it's just language. It's not like there was a carefully designed "one true language" in the past and this is a fallen world speaking only inferior pidgins. Even in the bible, we can see Jesus starting a lot of stories with "truly, truly I say unto you..." followed by a parable.
    - BeetleB 4y ago
      > but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way English is not Latin. It was born deteriorated.
  - GavinMcG 4y ago
- rendall 4y ago
  I'm afraid that complaints about the use of literally as an intensifier comes off as naive these days. https://youtu.be/0p5oNM86Hgw?t=257 https://youtu.be/0p5oNM86Hgw?t=257 @4:17 "No one complains about "fabulous"... or "marvelous"... or even the word "very"... etymologically meaning true..." I myself am coming to a place of acceptance about the use of "begs the question" to mean "raises the question". While I will never use it that way, I no longer literally grind my teeth to dust when I hear it.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    To rebut the expert in the video, the seemingly obvious difference is that "literally" has changed suddenly and in my lifetime, and specifically to mean the opposite of its true definition vs. merely adding a meaning. It isn't naivety for one to be bothered by it; it is grammatical laziness to misuse it. Maybe I will care less when poor kids born today misuse it in 20 years.
    - jamincan 4y ago
      This is simply not true. According to Merriam-Webster, its use in a figurative context goes back 300 years. And hyperbole has a real function in language - it's not just laziness. Omitting 'quite literally', or worse, replacing it with 'figuratively' in the original sentence would communicate something quite different.
      - mannykannot 4y ago
        No-one should be suggesting replacing "quite literally" with "figuratively", but there is no problem with removing it altogether. It is pointless to introduce hyperbole here.
  - lumb63 4y ago
    > We want writing to be transparent, clear, and easy to read. Need I say more than the above quote to convince someone that the “figurative use of literally” should be avoided? I’d say the same of any other auto-antonym. Language is a tool to communicate our meaning. When we use words that obscure our meaning, it ceases to serve its purpose. Yes, I understand it is hyperbolic. Yes, I understand it has been used in this way for a long time. The reason that the author of this video has words like “very”, “ridiculous”, and “fabulous” to complain about is because nobody was a stickler about those words long ago, and they’ve now lost their meaning. Yet somehow, rather than encouraging people to use words to mean what they mean, he decides that since it’s happened before, we ought to accept it happening again. I don’t know why he would ever decide that is the rational decision.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Per Merriam Webster: b : a place of origin the cradle of civilization An accepted definition of "cradle" is a place of origin. Please do not spread misinformation with such confidence without first doing a Google search.
  - GavinMcG 4y ago
    Our other thread fleshes this out, but there's a difference between widespread idiom and accepted definition. A dictionary's description of idiomatic use does not indicate that the term independently denotes the idiomatic meaning. Similarly, if I say "cats and dogs," that isn't a measure of volume or intensity except where paired with "raining." Having to say "of civilization" indicates that "cradle" is being used metaphorically or idiomatically. Please be more charitable. None of what I've said is misinformation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
globular-toast 4y ago
It's disputed which is longest. There's a note about it on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River#cite_note-longest-22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River#cite_note-longest...

GavinMcG 4y ago

When you say “quite literally” you seem to mean “figuratively.” A river is not a cradle.

jamincan 4y ago
The use of "literally" in this context is so pervasive that any English dictionary will include it in its definition. This nit-picking is so pervasive that Merriam-Webster includes an FAQ on the words use. "Can literally mean figuratively? One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal"). Is the extended use of literally new? The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others. Is the extended use of literally slang? Among the meanings of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally)
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  You're not wrong, but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way. Most of the time, it's obvious from context what one means by 'literally' but not always. Why create extra ambiguity when there already exists other functional language constructs to express the same thought with clarity? It does make me wonder how much this happens in other languages, especially ones like French where there is an effort to keep the language from morphing too much, too quickly.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    It's not "deterioration" just change. Deterioration implies deviation from a natural, ideal, or perfect state, which languages simply do not have. This belief that the language is in decline and losing some ineffable beauty or value is older than english, in fact some of our oldest historical documents at all are versions of this lament. The language we speak now is the result of millennia of such "deterioration." Those language-control bodies that some countries have are somewhat a relic of before we had our current understanding of the mechanics of language use and how languages change over time. They can also be understood as a leftover tool from the european bootstrapping-nationstates era. Either way, those bodies may (but it's debatable) have some influence on the rate the language change, or what specific changes occur. But nowhere near as much as they purport to, maybe close to none at all.
  - knodi123 4y ago
    Eh. It's not a deterioration, it's just language. It's not like there was a carefully designed "one true language" in the past and this is a fallen world speaking only inferior pidgins. Even in the bible, we can see Jesus starting a lot of stories with "truly, truly I say unto you..." followed by a parable.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    > but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way English is not Latin. It was born deteriorated.
- GavinMcG 4y ago
rendall 4y ago
I'm afraid that complaints about the use of literally as an intensifier comes off as naive these days. https://youtu.be/0p5oNM86Hgw?t=257 https://youtu.be/0p5oNM86Hgw?t=257 @4:17 "No one complains about "fabulous"... or "marvelous"... or even the word "very"... etymologically meaning true..." I myself am coming to a place of acceptance about the use of "begs the question" to mean "raises the question". While I will never use it that way, I no longer literally grind my teeth to dust when I hear it.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  To rebut the expert in the video, the seemingly obvious difference is that "literally" has changed suddenly and in my lifetime, and specifically to mean the opposite of its true definition vs. merely adding a meaning. It isn't naivety for one to be bothered by it; it is grammatical laziness to misuse it. Maybe I will care less when poor kids born today misuse it in 20 years.
  - jamincan 4y ago
    This is simply not true. According to Merriam-Webster, its use in a figurative context goes back 300 years. And hyperbole has a real function in language - it's not just laziness. Omitting 'quite literally', or worse, replacing it with 'figuratively' in the original sentence would communicate something quite different.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      No-one should be suggesting replacing "quite literally" with "figuratively", but there is no problem with removing it altogether. It is pointless to introduce hyperbole here.
- lumb63 4y ago
  > We want writing to be transparent, clear, and easy to read. Need I say more than the above quote to convince someone that the “figurative use of literally” should be avoided? I’d say the same of any other auto-antonym. Language is a tool to communicate our meaning. When we use words that obscure our meaning, it ceases to serve its purpose. Yes, I understand it is hyperbolic. Yes, I understand it has been used in this way for a long time. The reason that the author of this video has words like “very”, “ridiculous”, and “fabulous” to complain about is because nobody was a stickler about those words long ago, and they’ve now lost their meaning. Yet somehow, rather than encouraging people to use words to mean what they mean, he decides that since it’s happened before, we ought to accept it happening again. I don’t know why he would ever decide that is the rational decision.
RC_ITR 4y ago
Per Merriam Webster: b : a place of origin the cradle of civilization An accepted definition of "cradle" is a place of origin. Please do not spread misinformation with such confidence without first doing a Google search.
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  Our other thread fleshes this out, but there's a difference between widespread idiom and accepted definition. A dictionary's description of idiomatic use does not indicate that the term independently denotes the idiomatic meaning. Similarly, if I say "cats and dogs," that isn't a measure of volume or intensity except where paired with "raining." Having to say "of civilization" indicates that "cradle" is being used metaphorically or idiomatically. Please be more charitable. None of what I've said is misinformation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

globular-toast 4y ago

It's disputed which is longest. There's a note about it on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River#cite_note-longest-22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River#cite_note-longest...