7 ms·

> I remember that there is truly no correct way to say something Weirdly, that's not what this says. It specifically says you can't say this: > * John will b

by gwd 1y ago

> I remember that there is truly no correct way to say something Weirdly, that's not what this says. It specifically says you can't say this: > * John will both try and kill mosquitos. or > * I tried and finished the assignment or > * Try always and tell the truth What I'd say instead is: If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. What you were taught is the "prescribed grammar" or "prestige grammar". Also, grammar is voted on by speakers of a language. I'm generally against making fun of people for deviating from the prestige grammar; but I will "vote against" using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as I can.

leeoniya 1y ago
> but I will "vote against" using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as I can. https://imgur.com/QBTlxf7 https://imgur.com/QBTlxf7
- MengerSponge 1y ago
  A real flammable/inflammable moment
strken 1y ago
> If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. In their dialect, sure. In any given dialect, who knows? Any speaker of a dialect that isn't West Coast American has likely watched actors who live in Los Angeles try, and fail, to speak their dialect.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  Of course. Just like what I’m writing now isn’t grammatically correct Spanish or Chinese.
  - strken 1y ago
    Well, no, but I can't understand 99% of Spanish and Chinese using my knowledge of my native English dialect, so I'm not going to lecture Spanish or Chinese speakers on correct grammar. My point was that differences between dialects drive a lot of arguments about grammar. If I'm annoyed about the phrase "could care less" then that originates in my native dialect not allowing it. Not being part of the prestige grammar is secondary, as is whether the phrase makes any logical sense.
mjevans 1y ago
In that context, 'literally' as figuratively makes the same sense as inflammable and flammable. It's just one more errata in a language that's filled with horrible hacks from centuries of iterative development. My hill to die on would be exactly one way (NOT the funky dictionary way!) of spelling words exactly as they should be pronounced and writing them back similarly. The hill to die on part of that is they need to start with children, teach them ONLY the correct way of spelling words as use in school and stick to it. While we're at it, FFS, do metric measures conversion the same way. Cold turkey force it, and bleed in dual measures and spelling with a cutover plan that starts to make the new correct way required to be larger text by the time the grade -2 kids graduate. (So about a 14-15 year plan.) That's to give all us adults time to bash into our heads the new spellings for old words too. Why can't it be dictionary spelling? Offhand, 1) those phonetics aren't used quite like that anywhere else. 2) those phonetics are more strongly based on the other languages in Europe so the structure isn't as expected. I'd sooner force everyone to learn how to write TUNIC's shapes... though there's some coverage issues for that. Effectively I want different shapes for the chart ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabe... ) that DO NOT MATCH EXISTING ENGLISH LETTERS so that when I look at a 'new spelling' my old pronunciation programmed brain doesn't index the wrong lookup table.
- cgriswald 1y ago
  The problem with "one spelling the way it is said" is that (1) pronunciation varies among native speakers even within the same country or region. (So, at best, you'd have to pick a winner or just count them all as different languages with their own spellings.) (2) Pronunciation drifts over time (and I'm not sure an official spelling and pronunciation could stop it).
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    The other reason is that there are many countries that speak English, and the largest and most powerful one is too politically dysfunctional to ever agree on something that would be this controversial.
- 1y ago
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
>Try always and tell the truth I think the article is incorrect on this though, try always and tell the truth is a perfectly fine albeit slightly anachronistic usage that would mean Whatever you do you must always try (that is to say not give up), and tell the truth. One might also assume that you should tell the truth about trying always is the meaning, but at any rate it is not a phrasing that would be out of order a few hundred years ago.
- losvedir 1y ago
  That's not the point. While it's a valid sentence, as you point out, it means something different from "try and always tell the truth". In contrast "try to always tell the truth" and "try always to tell the truth" are both valid and mean the same thing.
cgriswald 1y ago
Although it is a little odd and I'm not certain I've seen it in writing, I have definitely heard constructions like "John will both try and kill mosquitos." to mean, "John will both attempt to and succeed in kill[ing] mosquitos." "John will both try and like sushi" makes perfect sense, although there's an implied "to eat" verb separate from the "to like" verb in there that isn't present in the constructions the article is talking about. Likewise, "I tried and finished the assignment," means "I tried (to do) the assignment and I finished it." Again, maybe not in writing, but with a certain inflection on 'tried' (where in writing maybe you'd put a comma or semi-colon to indicate a pause) this is something people actually say; although they may emphasis it with "I finally tried and actually finished the assignment." (Whereas maybe previously they weren't confident they could even do it and maybe didn't try.) Included for no real reason: "They tried and failed, all of them?" "Oh, no." She shook her head. "They tried and died."
- amenhotep 1y ago
  These are all just different constructions that are related to "try and" only by coincidence. The fact that a different construction looks similar to a grammatically incoherent one by coincidence doesn't make the incoherent one coherent.
  - mikepurvis 1y ago
    I disagree. GP is laying is laying out reasonable scenarios that are a few dropped/implied words away from the otherwise incoherent ones. For my part, this one is very grating to my ears: "Try and tell the truth" Since it clearly should be "try to tell the truth" However this one, while similar in construction, doesn't actually sound nearly as bad: "Try and finish the assignment" It can be fixed the same way ("try to finish") but it also accept GP's form too, which would be "try (to work hard) and (see if you can) finish the assignment". As I say, for whatever reason this second example sounds much more reasonable to me— I think at least in part my brain is much more accepting of a word that feels dropped than one that's misused.
    - csande17 1y ago
aswanson 1y ago
Irregardless of this, what's your take on irregardless?
- seanhunter 1y ago
  Irregardless is fine and people who try to be pedantic about it are just mistaken. It is literally in the dictionary as an intensified form of “regardless”.
  - aswanson 1y ago
    That's cap. 'Ir' is usually used in the english language to denote the negative of the following property that follows it, e.g. irrespective meaning not respective. Regardless alone signals the negative assertion of the following property, so a prepending of 'ir' before it connotes a not-not, a double negative, and against the context of what is trying to be communicated. Having a problem with this abuse of language/meaning/communication is to be expected.
    - seanhunter 1y ago
      It’s not an abuse of language or meaning or communication. It’s a rule that you really want to be true for English but which unfortunately has exceptions. Irregardless is one of those exceptions. It’s not a word that I personally use because I don’t like it (probably for the reasons you’re articulating) but English doesn’t actually care what you or I think. Using “irregardless” as a synonym for “regardless” or “irrespective” is not incorrect. OED calls it a “nonstandard or humorous use” https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Irregardless&tl=true https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Irreg...
School-Cotton 1y ago
Nobody has ever used “literally” to mean “figuratively”. That’s a common misconception and/or a strawman from people who want to stick to the original meaning of “literally”. If that were the meaning, you would be able to say things like “I stubbed my toe and it hurts so bad I’m figuratively dying”, mirroring the colloquial meaning of “literally”. But nobody says this. The actual new and non-traditional meaning of “literally” is as a generic intensifier, see e.g. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally Oh, and by the way, the “traditional” meaning isn’t even the first one. According to my OED second edition, “literal” meaning “Of a translation, version, transcript, etc.: Representing the very words of the original; verbally exact.” is only attested since 1599. The actual original meaning of “literal”: “of or pertaining to letters of the alphabet; of the nature of letters, alphabetical” is attested since 1475.
- antonvs 1y ago
  > The actual original meaning of “literal”: “of or pertaining to letters of the alphabet; of the nature of letters, alphabetical” is attested since 1475. That meaning comes from the Latin "littera"/"litera", meaning letter or character. Words like "transliteration" are based on this root meaning (https://www.etymonline.com/word/transliteration https://www.etymonline.com/word/transliteration) Here's the page for "literal": https://www.etymonline.com/word/literal https://www.etymonline.com/word/literal
- card_zero 1y ago
  But your link gives two senses, and it's the second one that applies here: "Used as an intensifier with statements or terms that are in fact meant figuratively and not word for word as stated". And Wiktionary offers the synonyms virtually and so to speak. "it hurts so bad I’m intensely dying" would be wrong too. It's more than an intensifier, it also means "figuratively".
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > It's more than an intensifier, it also means "figuratively". No, its an intensifier for things which are contextually unambiguously figurative. It doesn't communicate that the use is figurative, it communicates intensity. The figurative nature of the expression is understood from context, not the use of the word "literally".
ecocentrik 1y ago
Dr Dre is a professional poet and a very successful one by any standard. His whole stock-in-trade was American urban colloquialisms most of which can be traced back to English rural and working class and predate the colonization of the Americas. The early development of English "prestige grammar" and word usage dates back to the court of William the Conqueror and the reintroduction of romance linguistic influence on Anglo-Saxon English that lead to the development of Middle English by the 13th Century. What you understand as English "prestige grammar" today is a moving target, consistently evolving but still full of contradictions and single-case rules. Many popular European languages today have been modified to exclude these linguistic anomalies, making them more consistent, less error prone and easier to learn. I expect the same thing will be done to the English language over the next century.
- antonvs 1y ago
  *stock-in-trade: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stock-in-trade https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stock-in-trade Sorry, in this thread, I had to! > I expect the same thing will be done to the English language over the next century. This has already been happening in English, for centuries. Compare these examples given in the article to modern English: > 3) ...howe and by what certaine and generall rule I mighte trye and throughly discerne the veritie of the catholike faithe, from the falsehood of wicked heresye... (1554) > 4) You maie (saide I) trie and bring him in, and shewe him to her. (1569) I suppose after more than 450 years, one might expect even more simplification, but it is perhaps the fate of a lingua franca to have more "backward compatibility" than less widely-used languages.
  - ecocentrik 1y ago
    My point was that English has been changing and in some instances those changes might have occurred to remove anomalous characteristics but English does have more old warts than most popular languages and I expect many of those will be removed as English recedes from its position of dominance over the next century.
    - 1y ago
phkahler 1y ago
>> but I will "vote against" using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as I can. Can we have also declare war on using "exponentially" in place of "significantly"?
- Quekid5 1y ago
  Interesting use of "declare war" there... :) I understand the feeling, but language is what language does. It will change and you will notice those changes if you're alive long enough :) Even prescriptivist languages (as my own native language tends to be) cannot escape. I'm bad at my own native language because I've been living elsewhere for very long... but not as bad as the Kids These Days :)
  - card_zero 1y ago
    You can participate in these changes. You can participate by resisting if you want. That's not futile, it's part of the process.
    - Quekid5 1y ago
      Yeah... or I could focus my energies elsewhere... where they'd be likely to have an impact. So it goes.
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    There is no such thing as a “prescriptive language”. What would that mean? No living language is only used according to the rules laid down by grammar teachers. The only languages that are are dead languages like Latin with zero native speakers.
    - Quekid5 1y ago
      I think you'll find I used a slightly different word. > No living language is only used according to the rules laid down by grammar teachers. The only languages that are are dead languages like Latin with zero native speakers. Well, quite.
LudwigNagasena 1y ago
> If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. What if two non-native speakers say something and understand each other?
- ricardobeat 1y ago
  Then they’re having a useful, but not grammatically correct, conversation.
  - antonvs 1y ago
    It may be grammatically correct in the dialect they're using. There's plenty of mutually-intelligible English spoken outside of primarily English-speaking countries which native English speakers would consider ungrammatical, but that's only relative to their own dialect.
- layer8 1y ago
  That’s a pidgin.
dsr_ 1y ago
Although it doesn't work for mosquitos, it does work for "bandits": John will both try and kill bandits. ... meaning that John will serve as judge and executioner, if not jury.
- gwd 1y ago
  Here's where HN needs a "cry-laughing" emoji. :-)
- madcaptenor 1y ago
  I'm hearing "try and kill mosquitoes" with "try" meaning "eat", except it doesn't quite work because obviously John should kill the mosquitoes before he eats them.
bigstrat2003 1y ago
> What I'd say instead is: If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. By your own logic, "literally" meaning "figuratively" is grammatically correct. Which just goes to show that your logic is wrong. Something can in fact be grammatically incorrect even when said by native speakers.

by gwd 1y ago

leeoniya 1y ago

> but I will "vote against" using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as I can. https://imgur.com/QBTlxf7 https://imgur.com/QBTlxf7

MengerSponge 1y ago
A real flammable/inflammable moment

strken 1y ago

> If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. In their dialect, sure. In any given dialect, who knows? Any speaker of a dialect that isn't West Coast American has likely watched actors who live in Los Angeles try, and fail, to speak their dialect.

School-Cotton 1y ago
Of course. Just like what I’m writing now isn’t grammatically correct Spanish or Chinese.
- strken 1y ago
  Well, no, but I can't understand 99% of Spanish and Chinese using my knowledge of my native English dialect, so I'm not going to lecture Spanish or Chinese speakers on correct grammar. My point was that differences between dialects drive a lot of arguments about grammar. If I'm annoyed about the phrase "could care less" then that originates in my native dialect not allowing it. Not being part of the prestige grammar is secondary, as is whether the phrase makes any logical sense.

mjevans 1y ago

In that context, 'literally' as figuratively makes the same sense as inflammable and flammable. It's just one more errata in a language that's filled with horrible hacks from centuries of iterative development. My hill to die on would be exactly one way (NOT the funky dictionary way!) of spelling words exactly as they should be pronounced and writing them back similarly. The hill to die on part of that is they need to start with children, teach them ONLY the correct way of spelling words as use in school and stick to it. While we're at it, FFS, do metric measures conversion the same way. Cold turkey force it, and bleed in dual measures and spelling with a cutover plan that starts to make the new correct way required to be larger text by the time the grade -2 kids graduate. (So about a 14-15 year plan.) That's to give all us adults time to bash into our heads the new spellings for old words too. Why can't it be dictionary spelling? Offhand, 1) those phonetics aren't used quite like that anywhere else. 2) those phonetics are more strongly based on the other languages in Europe so the structure isn't as expected. I'd sooner force everyone to learn how to write TUNIC's shapes... though there's some coverage issues for that. Effectively I want different shapes for the chart ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabe... ) that DO NOT MATCH EXISTING ENGLISH LETTERS so that when I look at a 'new spelling' my old pronunciation programmed brain doesn't index the wrong lookup table.

cgriswald 1y ago
The problem with "one spelling the way it is said" is that (1) pronunciation varies among native speakers even within the same country or region. (So, at best, you'd have to pick a winner or just count them all as different languages with their own spellings.) (2) Pronunciation drifts over time (and I'm not sure an official spelling and pronunciation could stop it).
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  The other reason is that there are many countries that speak English, and the largest and most powerful one is too politically dysfunctional to ever agree on something that would be this controversial.
1y ago

bryanrasmussen 1y ago

>Try always and tell the truth I think the article is incorrect on this though, try always and tell the truth is a perfectly fine albeit slightly anachronistic usage that would mean Whatever you do you must always try (that is to say not give up), and tell the truth. One might also assume that you should tell the truth about trying always is the meaning, but at any rate it is not a phrasing that would be out of order a few hundred years ago.

losvedir 1y ago
That's not the point. While it's a valid sentence, as you point out, it means something different from "try and always tell the truth". In contrast "try to always tell the truth" and "try always to tell the truth" are both valid and mean the same thing.

cgriswald 1y ago

Although it is a little odd and I'm not certain I've seen it in writing, I have definitely heard constructions like "John will both try and kill mosquitos." to mean, "John will both attempt to and succeed in kill[ing] mosquitos." "John will both try and like sushi" makes perfect sense, although there's an implied "to eat" verb separate from the "to like" verb in there that isn't present in the constructions the article is talking about. Likewise, "I tried and finished the assignment," means "I tried (to do) the assignment and I finished it." Again, maybe not in writing, but with a certain inflection on 'tried' (where in writing maybe you'd put a comma or semi-colon to indicate a pause) this is something people actually say; although they may emphasis it with "I finally tried and actually finished the assignment." (Whereas maybe previously they weren't confident they could even do it and maybe didn't try.) Included for no real reason: "They tried and failed, all of them?" "Oh, no." She shook her head. "They tried and died."

amenhotep 1y ago
These are all just different constructions that are related to "try and" only by coincidence. The fact that a different construction looks similar to a grammatically incoherent one by coincidence doesn't make the incoherent one coherent.
- mikepurvis 1y ago
  I disagree. GP is laying is laying out reasonable scenarios that are a few dropped/implied words away from the otherwise incoherent ones. For my part, this one is very grating to my ears: "Try and tell the truth" Since it clearly should be "try to tell the truth" However this one, while similar in construction, doesn't actually sound nearly as bad: "Try and finish the assignment" It can be fixed the same way ("try to finish") but it also accept GP's form too, which would be "try (to work hard) and (see if you can) finish the assignment". As I say, for whatever reason this second example sounds much more reasonable to me— I think at least in part my brain is much more accepting of a word that feels dropped than one that's misused.
  - csande17 1y ago

aswanson 1y ago

Irregardless of this, what's your take on irregardless?

seanhunter 1y ago
Irregardless is fine and people who try to be pedantic about it are just mistaken. It is literally in the dictionary as an intensified form of “regardless”.
- aswanson 1y ago
  That's cap. 'Ir' is usually used in the english language to denote the negative of the following property that follows it, e.g. irrespective meaning not respective. Regardless alone signals the negative assertion of the following property, so a prepending of 'ir' before it connotes a not-not, a double negative, and against the context of what is trying to be communicated. Having a problem with this abuse of language/meaning/communication is to be expected.
  - seanhunter 1y ago
    It’s not an abuse of language or meaning or communication. It’s a rule that you really want to be true for English but which unfortunately has exceptions. Irregardless is one of those exceptions. It’s not a word that I personally use because I don’t like it (probably for the reasons you’re articulating) but English doesn’t actually care what you or I think. Using “irregardless” as a synonym for “regardless” or “irrespective” is not incorrect. OED calls it a “nonstandard or humorous use” https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Irregardless&tl=true https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Irreg...

School-Cotton 1y ago

Nobody has ever used “literally” to mean “figuratively”. That’s a common misconception and/or a strawman from people who want to stick to the original meaning of “literally”. If that were the meaning, you would be able to say things like “I stubbed my toe and it hurts so bad I’m figuratively dying”, mirroring the colloquial meaning of “literally”. But nobody says this. The actual new and non-traditional meaning of “literally” is as a generic intensifier, see e.g. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally Oh, and by the way, the “traditional” meaning isn’t even the first one. According to my OED second edition, “literal” meaning “Of a translation, version, transcript, etc.: Representing the very words of the original; verbally exact.” is only attested since 1599. The actual original meaning of “literal”: “of or pertaining to letters of the alphabet; of the nature of letters, alphabetical” is attested since 1475.

antonvs 1y ago
> The actual original meaning of “literal”: “of or pertaining to letters of the alphabet; of the nature of letters, alphabetical” is attested since 1475. That meaning comes from the Latin "littera"/"litera", meaning letter or character. Words like "transliteration" are based on this root meaning (https://www.etymonline.com/word/transliteration https://www.etymonline.com/word/transliteration) Here's the page for "literal": https://www.etymonline.com/word/literal https://www.etymonline.com/word/literal
card_zero 1y ago
But your link gives two senses, and it's the second one that applies here: "Used as an intensifier with statements or terms that are in fact meant figuratively and not word for word as stated". And Wiktionary offers the synonyms virtually and so to speak. "it hurts so bad I’m intensely dying" would be wrong too. It's more than an intensifier, it also means "figuratively".
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > It's more than an intensifier, it also means "figuratively". No, its an intensifier for things which are contextually unambiguously figurative. It doesn't communicate that the use is figurative, it communicates intensity. The figurative nature of the expression is understood from context, not the use of the word "literally".

ecocentrik 1y ago

Dr Dre is a professional poet and a very successful one by any standard. His whole stock-in-trade was American urban colloquialisms most of which can be traced back to English rural and working class and predate the colonization of the Americas. The early development of English "prestige grammar" and word usage dates back to the court of William the Conqueror and the reintroduction of romance linguistic influence on Anglo-Saxon English that lead to the development of Middle English by the 13th Century. What you understand as English "prestige grammar" today is a moving target, consistently evolving but still full of contradictions and single-case rules. Many popular European languages today have been modified to exclude these linguistic anomalies, making them more consistent, less error prone and easier to learn. I expect the same thing will be done to the English language over the next century.

antonvs 1y ago
*stock-in-trade: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stock-in-trade https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stock-in-trade Sorry, in this thread, I had to! > I expect the same thing will be done to the English language over the next century. This has already been happening in English, for centuries. Compare these examples given in the article to modern English: > 3) ...howe and by what certaine and generall rule I mighte trye and throughly discerne the veritie of the catholike faithe, from the falsehood of wicked heresye... (1554) > 4) You maie (saide I) trie and bring him in, and shewe him to her. (1569) I suppose after more than 450 years, one might expect even more simplification, but it is perhaps the fate of a lingua franca to have more "backward compatibility" than less widely-used languages.
- ecocentrik 1y ago
  My point was that English has been changing and in some instances those changes might have occurred to remove anomalous characteristics but English does have more old warts than most popular languages and I expect many of those will be removed as English recedes from its position of dominance over the next century.
  - 1y ago

phkahler 1y ago

>> but I will "vote against" using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as I can. Can we have also declare war on using "exponentially" in place of "significantly"?

Quekid5 1y ago
Interesting use of "declare war" there... :) I understand the feeling, but language is what language does. It will change and you will notice those changes if you're alive long enough :) Even prescriptivist languages (as my own native language tends to be) cannot escape. I'm bad at my own native language because I've been living elsewhere for very long... but not as bad as the Kids These Days :)
- card_zero 1y ago
  You can participate in these changes. You can participate by resisting if you want. That's not futile, it's part of the process.
  - Quekid5 1y ago
    Yeah... or I could focus my energies elsewhere... where they'd be likely to have an impact. So it goes.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  There is no such thing as a “prescriptive language”. What would that mean? No living language is only used according to the rules laid down by grammar teachers. The only languages that are are dead languages like Latin with zero native speakers.
  - Quekid5 1y ago
    I think you'll find I used a slightly different word. > No living language is only used according to the rules laid down by grammar teachers. The only languages that are are dead languages like Latin with zero native speakers. Well, quite.

LudwigNagasena 1y ago

> If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. What if two non-native speakers say something and understand each other?

ricardobeat 1y ago
Then they’re having a useful, but not grammatically correct, conversation.
- antonvs 1y ago
  It may be grammatically correct in the dialect they're using. There's plenty of mutually-intelligible English spoken outside of primarily English-speaking countries which native English speakers would consider ungrammatical, but that's only relative to their own dialect.
layer8 1y ago
That’s a pidgin.

dsr_ 1y ago

Although it doesn't work for mosquitos, it does work for "bandits": John will both try and kill bandits. ... meaning that John will serve as judge and executioner, if not jury.

gwd 1y ago
Here's where HN needs a "cry-laughing" emoji. :-)
madcaptenor 1y ago
I'm hearing "try and kill mosquitoes" with "try" meaning "eat", except it doesn't quite work because obviously John should kill the mosquitoes before he eats them.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

> What I'd say instead is: If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. By your own logic, "literally" meaning "figuratively" is grammatically correct. Which just goes to show that your logic is wrong. Something can in fact be grammatically incorrect even when said by native speakers.