2 ms·

Words don't just have a single meaning. Definition 3 from Merriam-Webster[1] of "only": FEW I can say "one of the few", or "one of the only", and they both ma

Words don't just have a single meaning. Definition 3 from Merriam-Webster[1] of "only": FEW I can say "one of the few", or "one of the only", and they both make perfect sense (and have the same meaning). You're being blindly prescriptive without even doing the legwork. 1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/only https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/only

pixelpoet 1y ago
Yes and I'm sure Webster will also say[1] that literally is a synonym for figuratively, because of how people also like to destroy the meaning of that word, and descriptivists will forcefully (and ironically) prescribe indifference to that. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
- skylurk 1y ago
  This article claims the idiom predates Merriam-Webster. https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/12/one-of-the-only.html https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/12/one-of-the-only.html
  - pixelpoet 1y ago
    I'm likewise aware that using literally to mean figuratively isn't particularly new, but the phrase's existence or age isn't the issue.
    - skylurk 1y ago
      I respect your commitment to influence the evolution of the language :)
      - pixelpoet 1y ago
        Heh, I just write too much too readily about unimportant opinions, and a lot of people read sentences longer than a few words as incontrovertible proof of being triggered :D Also it's difficult not to call out the hypocrisy of descriptivists simultaneously saying that basically anything goes, but my preferred use of language in particular is wrong and I need to listen to what they prescribe :P
- fckgw 1y ago
  Words change. Meanings change. This has always happened an always will. If enough people are ironically using literally, even if unknowingly, then yeah, the meaning will change and we need things like dictionaries to describe this new meaning.
  - skylurk 1y ago
    You're not wrong, but IIRC "only" has meant "one-like" since old english.

pixelpoet 1y ago

Yes and I'm sure Webster will also say[1] that literally is a synonym for figuratively, because of how people also like to destroy the meaning of that word, and descriptivists will forcefully (and ironically) prescribe indifference to that. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

skylurk 1y ago
This article claims the idiom predates Merriam-Webster. https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/12/one-of-the-only.html https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/12/one-of-the-only.html
- pixelpoet 1y ago
  I'm likewise aware that using literally to mean figuratively isn't particularly new, but the phrase's existence or age isn't the issue.
  - skylurk 1y ago
    I respect your commitment to influence the evolution of the language :)
    - pixelpoet 1y ago
      Heh, I just write too much too readily about unimportant opinions, and a lot of people read sentences longer than a few words as incontrovertible proof of being triggered :D Also it's difficult not to call out the hypocrisy of descriptivists simultaneously saying that basically anything goes, but my preferred use of language in particular is wrong and I need to listen to what they prescribe :P
fckgw 1y ago
Words change. Meanings change. This has always happened an always will. If enough people are ironically using literally, even if unknowingly, then yeah, the meaning will change and we need things like dictionaries to describe this new meaning.
- skylurk 1y ago
  You're not wrong, but IIRC "only" has meant "one-like" since old english.