4 ms·

Then don't play fast and loose. Maybe one day we will look at a river or valley and use the word "cradle" in a non-metaphorical manner. Right now, we don't.

RC_ITR 4y ago
I'm very confused by your stance. I get that cradle started out meaning "basket" (like definire started out meaning drawing boundaries), but now it literally also means the place where a civilizations started (like define literally means to describe a word). Are you denying that process happens? Can words never expand in definition? What about computer terms like type? Can a person never literally type on a computer in any context ever? Or should I just give up because this is a personal neurological thing that we will just disagree on forever due to differences in how we process inputs about the world?
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  Not denying that the process happens, and maybe it's irreconcilable. But I'll attempt to describe my position in more general terms. The difference between "literal" and "figurative"/"metaphorical" is whether a term is being used as a first-order label for a thing in itself, or as a reference to another concept. That is, a figurative use of a term applies meaning by drawing on a distinct source of meaning. Words (or idiomatic phrases) can become literal when their usage becomes so strongly identified with what they label that their meaning is no longer determined by reference. "Turn on" no longer involves turning, for example. I agree that "definition" has become literal, because we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself. I do not believe this is the case when someone calls the Yellow River the cradle of Chinese civilization. I believe that people hearing that term primarily understand "cradle" by reference to the baby-related object, rather than because the word has meaning in itself relating to the start of civilization. As evidence of this, I think attaching "of Chinese civilization" is doing meaningful work, and that most people would be thrown off by the abstract phrase "cradles around the world" or even by the more specific phrase "the Yellow River, China's cradle." They may still understand the speaker's meaning, but they would do so by connecting the metaphorical dots, not because "cradle" has become a literalism.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    >a first-order label for a thing in itself Let's bring this back to typing because I think it really helps. Typos from Greek refers to a physical mark or impression made by a stamp (not inherently letters, any physical impression). We then used that etymology to come up with 'type' to represent the blocks that deposited ink onto paper . Kind of a stretch, but I would still consider that a first order label in your framework. Great we are aligned. But wait, I'm typing this comment and there's no physical impressions being made on paper. Am I not literally typing? >we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself. Sure, I'm not imagining a printing press, but whether or not I know it, I am making a metaphor to it. So if we stopped using the term 'cradle' to refer to a basket (therefore breaking the metaphor), then cradle becomes literal? Seems like a fragile/not useful distinction to me.
    - GavinMcG 4y ago
      I think "whether or not [you] know it" is key. The definitions I'm advancing have to do with the subjective mental work you do (or don't do). I agree that "typing" is literal because we do not loop in the concept of physical type making an impression when we interpret or describe the action of fingers on a keyboard. The term has flown the nest, so to speak. What about my last paragraph? Do you deny that there's a two-step process going on, or do you actually see the phrase "Chinese cradle" and interpret it to mean "birthplace of civilization" rather than first assuming it means a baby-related object produced in China? Of course it's weak. This is all pedantry. But then again, "literal" now means both "literal" and "not literal" so maybe all linguistic distinctions are fragile. Less useful once they're destroyed, though—it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal."
      - RC_ITR 4y ago
        >What about my last paragraph? Do you deny that there's a two-step process going on, or do you actually see the phrase "Chinese cradle" and interpret it to mean "birthplace of civilization" rather than first assuming it means a baby-related object produced in China? I didn't want to get off topic, but I speculate the most common usage of 'cradle' in American English is 'Cradle to Grave.' I didn't bring it up, since it torpedoes your argument (Cradle is used to mean infancy in this case, not a physical item), but it feels too nuanced to be a general argument. >it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal." Actually, I think we do.

RC_ITR 4y ago

I'm very confused by your stance. I get that cradle started out meaning "basket" (like definire started out meaning drawing boundaries), but now it literally also means the place where a civilizations started (like define literally means to describe a word). Are you denying that process happens? Can words never expand in definition? What about computer terms like type? Can a person never literally type on a computer in any context ever? Or should I just give up because this is a personal neurological thing that we will just disagree on forever due to differences in how we process inputs about the world?

GavinMcG 4y ago
Not denying that the process happens, and maybe it's irreconcilable. But I'll attempt to describe my position in more general terms. The difference between "literal" and "figurative"/"metaphorical" is whether a term is being used as a first-order label for a thing in itself, or as a reference to another concept. That is, a figurative use of a term applies meaning by drawing on a distinct source of meaning. Words (or idiomatic phrases) can become literal when their usage becomes so strongly identified with what they label that their meaning is no longer determined by reference. "Turn on" no longer involves turning, for example. I agree that "definition" has become literal, because we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself. I do not believe this is the case when someone calls the Yellow River the cradle of Chinese civilization. I believe that people hearing that term primarily understand "cradle" by reference to the baby-related object, rather than because the word has meaning in itself relating to the start of civilization. As evidence of this, I think attaching "of Chinese civilization" is doing meaningful work, and that most people would be thrown off by the abstract phrase "cradles around the world" or even by the more specific phrase "the Yellow River, China's cradle." They may still understand the speaker's meaning, but they would do so by connecting the metaphorical dots, not because "cradle" has become a literalism.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >a first-order label for a thing in itself Let's bring this back to typing because I think it really helps. Typos from Greek refers to a physical mark or impression made by a stamp (not inherently letters, any physical impression). We then used that etymology to come up with 'type' to represent the blocks that deposited ink onto paper . Kind of a stretch, but I would still consider that a first order label in your framework. Great we are aligned. But wait, I'm typing this comment and there's no physical impressions being made on paper. Am I not literally typing? >we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself. Sure, I'm not imagining a printing press, but whether or not I know it, I am making a metaphor to it. So if we stopped using the term 'cradle' to refer to a basket (therefore breaking the metaphor), then cradle becomes literal? Seems like a fragile/not useful distinction to me.
  - GavinMcG 4y ago
    I think "whether or not [you] know it" is key. The definitions I'm advancing have to do with the subjective mental work you do (or don't do). I agree that "typing" is literal because we do not loop in the concept of physical type making an impression when we interpret or describe the action of fingers on a keyboard. The term has flown the nest, so to speak. What about my last paragraph? Do you deny that there's a two-step process going on, or do you actually see the phrase "Chinese cradle" and interpret it to mean "birthplace of civilization" rather than first assuming it means a baby-related object produced in China? Of course it's weak. This is all pedantry. But then again, "literal" now means both "literal" and "not literal" so maybe all linguistic distinctions are fragile. Less useful once they're destroyed, though—it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal."
    - RC_ITR 4y ago
      >What about my last paragraph? Do you deny that there's a two-step process going on, or do you actually see the phrase "Chinese cradle" and interpret it to mean "birthplace of civilization" rather than first assuming it means a baby-related object produced in China? I didn't want to get off topic, but I speculate the most common usage of 'cradle' in American English is 'Cradle to Grave.' I didn't bring it up, since it torpedoes your argument (Cradle is used to mean infancy in this case, not a physical item), but it feels too nuanced to be a general argument. >it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal." Actually, I think we do.