3 ms·

The meaning is likely understood/inferred by many if not most, sure. It's still a "contresens" (can't find the right word in English, literally counter to its

The meaning is likely understood/inferred by many if not most, sure. It's still a "contresens" (can't find the right word in English, literally counter to its meaning), and should absolutely be avoided for clarity. Let's not just say that it's alright

cenamus 1y ago
Sounds vaguely similar to Jesperson's cycle and double negatives, the "couldn't care less" idioms. And "absolutely avoided for clarity" is a bit harsh, language is by its nature imprecise and telling people how to speak has (thankfully) almost never worked to avert language change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen%27s_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen%27s_cycle
sunshowers 1y ago
It's alright. Human languages aren't really logically tight the way computer languages are. An example that goes completely unremarked on is "near miss", which logically means something that came close to missing but actually hit, and yet in idiomatic use means the opposite. People also get upset at "literally" to mean "figuratively", another one I find strange because it's an intensifier. Clarity matters more in formal writing, and "couldn't care less" isn't particularly formal in any case.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  George Carlin had a bit about “near miss” and other illogical phrasings.
- synecdoche 1y ago
  In a way there’s nothing wrong with ”near miss”. It’s a miss not far from the target. Still a miss.
- saltcured 1y ago
  I wouldn't put these in the same category. The inversion of "could care less" meaning "couldn't care less" or "unloose" meaning "loose" are similar. But "near miss" is more a parsing ambiguity, if not a mere disagreement about grammar. People who think it is illogical seem to assume it is "nearly missing". But in actual usage it is more that "near miss" is like a "narrow miss" and a "far miss" is like a "wide miss", all encoding distance to the implied target/hit zone.
- sheepdestroyer 1y ago
  I did use literally correctly. And I can't agree with you. As a non native speaker, I deeply appreciate people making an effort to use language correctly to transmit information. I call that being mindfull of your interlocutors.
  - sunshowers 1y ago
    I'm also a non-native (though near-native) speaker and writer. I grew up reading a lot of English but not speaking much of it.
navbaker 1y ago
It is alright. Most people can figure out from context clues what the writer means and the only thing being pedantic and demanding about other peoples’ language does is make them REALLY not want to do what you’re saying.

cenamus 1y ago

Sounds vaguely similar to Jesperson's cycle and double negatives, the "couldn't care less" idioms. And "absolutely avoided for clarity" is a bit harsh, language is by its nature imprecise and telling people how to speak has (thankfully) almost never worked to avert language change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen%27s_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen%27s_cycle

sunshowers 1y ago

It's alright. Human languages aren't really logically tight the way computer languages are. An example that goes completely unremarked on is "near miss", which logically means something that came close to missing but actually hit, and yet in idiomatic use means the opposite. People also get upset at "literally" to mean "figuratively", another one I find strange because it's an intensifier. Clarity matters more in formal writing, and "couldn't care less" isn't particularly formal in any case.

SoftTalker 1y ago
George Carlin had a bit about “near miss” and other illogical phrasings.
synecdoche 1y ago
In a way there’s nothing wrong with ”near miss”. It’s a miss not far from the target. Still a miss.
saltcured 1y ago
I wouldn't put these in the same category. The inversion of "could care less" meaning "couldn't care less" or "unloose" meaning "loose" are similar. But "near miss" is more a parsing ambiguity, if not a mere disagreement about grammar. People who think it is illogical seem to assume it is "nearly missing". But in actual usage it is more that "near miss" is like a "narrow miss" and a "far miss" is like a "wide miss", all encoding distance to the implied target/hit zone.
sheepdestroyer 1y ago
I did use literally correctly. And I can't agree with you. As a non native speaker, I deeply appreciate people making an effort to use language correctly to transmit information. I call that being mindfull of your interlocutors.
- sunshowers 1y ago
  I'm also a non-native (though near-native) speaker and writer. I grew up reading a lot of English but not speaking much of it.

navbaker 1y ago

It is alright. Most people can figure out from context clues what the writer means and the only thing being pedantic and demanding about other peoples’ language does is make them REALLY not want to do what you’re saying.