10 ms·

Huge pet peeve. I think less of a person when they use "literally" improperly. Why can't they just say: I mean her hair was _figuratively_ on fire!

by ardell 18y ago

staunch 18y ago
> I think less of a person when they use "literally" improperly. I catch myself thinking like that sometimes and I think it's a mistake.
timr 18y ago
I think the whole point of the article was that the figurative usage of the word isn't a sign of mental deficiency.
codyrobbins 18y ago
Huge pet peeve. I think less of a person when the perfectly legitimate use of 'literally' is a pet peeve of theirs. If you read the article you would understand how there's nothing improper about the usage. If you knew anything about human language you'd know that there's no such thing as an improper usage. Sheidlower is a highly respected lexicographer and his entire article subtly acknowledges this fact. The speech community uses the word in a certain way, and all who hear it understand what is being said, without even consciously realizing it. There is nothing improper or wrong about how it is being used. The amazing richness of language is due in part exactly to the kind of mechanisms that cause drift such as seen with 'literally', and it's a testament to the endless versatility of the language mechanism. On the surface at which the average person contemplates it, sitting around in their armchair, language is not a rigid, logical artifice that makes the sort of naive sense they want it to. Read Pinker's 'The Language Instinct' for a good discussion of the topic of language mavens. My pet peeve is people like you, who have pet peeves that are grounded in your own ignorance.
- ardell 18y ago
  > If you knew anything about human language... > My pet peeve is people like you... Wow, that was kind of mean. I understand that you have an opinion about this topic but I don't think that's a legitimate reason to be insulting.
  - codyrobbins 18y ago
    Accept my apologies -- I honestly didn't intend that reply to come across as mean-spirited, but I guess it did. I just feel like judging a person just because they use a particular turn of phrase is kind of awful, especially when, as the article explains, they are actually using the phrase in a highly subtle and expressive way, which the entire speech community implicitly agrees on (and has agreed on for hundreds of years, in this case). I don't see how it's any more insulting for me to say that my pet peeve is people like you than it is for you to say that your pet peeve is people who say 'literally'. In any event I'm not proclaiming you ignorant as an insult or name-calling -- I'm simply stating that I believe it's ignorant to think less of a person because you don't think their usage makes 'logical' sense. Language is a locus of communicative intent and its purpose is being achieved marvelously by this usage: otherwise people would not be using it.
- dasil003 18y ago
  I tend to agree, but nevertheless this particular usage does bother me. There's no concise way to express the idea that something really, truly, actually, physically happened as clearly as the word "literally" can. And yet we just toss it in with the ever increasing batch of redundant superlatives needed to satisfy our desire for dramatic grandeur.

Huge pet peeve. I think less of a person when they use "literally" improperly. Why can't they just say: I mean her hair was _figuratively_ on fire!

by ardell 18y ago

Huge pet peeve. I think less of a person when they use "literally" improperly. Why can't they just say: I mean her hair was _figuratively_ on fire!

staunch 18y ago

> I think less of a person when they use "literally" improperly. I catch myself thinking like that sometimes and I think it's a mistake.

timr 18y ago

I think the whole point of the article was that the figurative usage of the word isn't a sign of mental deficiency.

codyrobbins 18y ago

Huge pet peeve. I think less of a person when the perfectly legitimate use of 'literally' is a pet peeve of theirs. If you read the article you would understand how there's nothing improper about the usage. If you knew anything about human language you'd know that there's no such thing as an improper usage. Sheidlower is a highly respected lexicographer and his entire article subtly acknowledges this fact. The speech community uses the word in a certain way, and all who hear it understand what is being said, without even consciously realizing it. There is nothing improper or wrong about how it is being used. The amazing richness of language is due in part exactly to the kind of mechanisms that cause drift such as seen with 'literally', and it's a testament to the endless versatility of the language mechanism. On the surface at which the average person contemplates it, sitting around in their armchair, language is not a rigid, logical artifice that makes the sort of naive sense they want it to. Read Pinker's 'The Language Instinct' for a good discussion of the topic of language mavens. My pet peeve is people like you, who have pet peeves that are grounded in your own ignorance.

ardell 18y ago
> If you knew anything about human language... > My pet peeve is people like you... Wow, that was kind of mean. I understand that you have an opinion about this topic but I don't think that's a legitimate reason to be insulting.
- codyrobbins 18y ago
  Accept my apologies -- I honestly didn't intend that reply to come across as mean-spirited, but I guess it did. I just feel like judging a person just because they use a particular turn of phrase is kind of awful, especially when, as the article explains, they are actually using the phrase in a highly subtle and expressive way, which the entire speech community implicitly agrees on (and has agreed on for hundreds of years, in this case). I don't see how it's any more insulting for me to say that my pet peeve is people like you than it is for you to say that your pet peeve is people who say 'literally'. In any event I'm not proclaiming you ignorant as an insult or name-calling -- I'm simply stating that I believe it's ignorant to think less of a person because you don't think their usage makes 'logical' sense. Language is a locus of communicative intent and its purpose is being achieved marvelously by this usage: otherwise people would not be using it.
dasil003 18y ago
I tend to agree, but nevertheless this particular usage does bother me. There's no concise way to express the idea that something really, truly, actually, physically happened as clearly as the word "literally" can. And yet we just toss it in with the ever increasing batch of redundant superlatives needed to satisfy our desire for dramatic grandeur.