4 ms·

That is not buying a career. That's making a deal. The guy said: > rich people can literally buy a career I'm not being sarcastic here. It used to be possible

by javert 12y ago

That is not buying a career. That's making a deal. The guy said: > rich people can literally buy a career I'm not being sarcastic here. It used to be possible to purchase a commission in the military. That is speaking historically. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't careers today you can literally purchase. Franchising comes kind of close, and running a taxi in NYC comes close. In ancient times, you could purchase the position of tax collector. Anyway, that person should not have said "literally" unless he meant it.

gizmo686 12y ago
Literally - "in effect : virtually" [1]. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
- javert 12y ago
  That isn't correct usage. (A falliable human being putting it in one particular dictionary doesn't mean it's correct.) Even someone who thinks that language should not be rule-based still should not use it, if their goal is to communicate clearly and concisely---since it does not achieve that. So ultimately, it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of language.
  - barrkel 12y ago
    Outside of a jargon context, the meaning of an English word is what the majority of word users agree it means, because that's what other people understand when the word is used. "Literally" has been debased by overuse for emphasis, and now it no longer means what it used to mean. See e.g. https://nowtoronto.com/news/in-defence-of-the-figurative-and8220literallyand8221/ https://nowtoronto.com/news/in-defence-of-the-figurative-and... and http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/language-literally-losing-its-meaning http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/lan... for more discussion.
    - javert 12y ago
      If you're interested, take a look at my comment which is a nephew to your comment. Here is the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8808616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8808616
  - peteretep 12y ago
    > it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of > language If you've managed to stumble upon an English-language equivalent of Académie française or the Icelandic Language Institute, with the power to define right and wrong in English, I'm sure we'd all love a link... Generally the closest thing we have is "one particular dictionary" (OED) but it aims to be descriptive, rather the prescriptive. However, regarding: > That isn't correct usage You can probably learn something unexpected from: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706
    - javert 12y ago
      When people change the language in ways that make it inferior for any reason (including due to being confusing), that is incorrect. It's also incorrect to use wood to build a house that is twice the thickness needed. It's also incorrect to build a rocket that uses an inferior type of fuel. These are not matters of social dictat. We don't need an Academie francaise for English because we should be taught the above principle in school and we should correct others when they make mistakes, in appropriate circumstances. Another principle: We should change the language to improve it when it is trivial to do so; so even if "literal" were well-established in the opposite meaning, we now know better and should stop doing it. But I do not believe it is well-established, despite the article you linked.
      - peteretep 12y ago
        Here is something for you to go away and think about... You talk about language as being "confusing" or "inferior". You clearly have strongly held criteria for those. Where have they come from? Has the English language changed in the last 1,000 years? How have you decided which of those changes to adopt? Were all those changes improvements, given your strongly held criteria? What about in the last 500 years? Which year did the version of English that you believe is most "correct" or "superior" occur? Are we currently at "peak" English? What improvement would modifying the meaning of "literal" bring? Do you know what the word etymology means? Does the etymology of "literal" support your desire to change its meaning? If the root of a word has subtly changed between its Classical roots and emergence in Anglo-Norman French, Middle English, or whatever, which of these is superior? If the root is unclear, and could be Latin or Greek, and has subtly different meanings, which is the right one to use? What about modern English words that have been adopted from - say - Hindi? ... Having pondered those, perhaps you could examine the rest of your comment. In the phrase "the thickness needed", what criteria define 'needed'? Cost? Durability? Ability to restrict noise? Foundation strength? Could these criteria change from house to house? Could people hold different opinions on those subjects, and both be right? In the phrase "inferior type of fuel", what constitutes 'inferior'? Could safety margins vs cost lead two experts to come up with different opinions on which fuel was superior?
jackvalentine 12y ago
Pedanticism of this nature is literally the key to living a frustrated and lonely life. You asked for a good faith reply and I gave it to you. You then decided to play your "trick" and point out that you're actually making a totally unrelated grammatical dispute with the original poster. I won't be falling for this again and replying to you further in the future. I hope it feels good to be "right" all the time.
- javert 12y ago
  I wasn't playing a trick. There are times when using "literally" in the figurative sense actually makes sense, even though I don't approve. But this is not one. So I thought maybe the person actually meant it in the non-figurative sense. If you want evidence that I'm an honest person, look at my comment history. I don't go around tricking people and trying to win arguments by deception. In fact, I frequently call people out for being nasty in various ways, much like you are doing here. I can understand why you think I'm trying to trick people and I was worried that would happen. That's why I talked about historical and quasi-examples of people buying careers. I didn't want you to think or feel that I was playing a trick.
  - throwawaymsft 12y ago
    Please realize language has ambiguities and is not a program that is compiled. Deliberately nitpicking the meaning of words from someone who is generously offering to clarify a statement for you looks like a sign of bad faith. Use a charitable interpretation and figure out the idea he/she was getting at. Clearly, money/power/fame/beauty can "buy" things even if there is no currency changing hands. That is the point the previous poster was making. Wealth is influence, and influence gets you favors, like a foot into a career.
    - javert 12y ago
      Yes, parts of this conversation reflect poor judgement on my part. I wasn't thinking too hard about it at the time.
    - 12y ago

by javert 12y ago

gizmo686 12y ago

Literally - "in effect : virtually" [1]. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

javert 12y ago
That isn't correct usage. (A falliable human being putting it in one particular dictionary doesn't mean it's correct.) Even someone who thinks that language should not be rule-based still should not use it, if their goal is to communicate clearly and concisely---since it does not achieve that. So ultimately, it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of language.
- barrkel 12y ago
  Outside of a jargon context, the meaning of an English word is what the majority of word users agree it means, because that's what other people understand when the word is used. "Literally" has been debased by overuse for emphasis, and now it no longer means what it used to mean. See e.g. https://nowtoronto.com/news/in-defence-of-the-figurative-and8220literallyand8221/ https://nowtoronto.com/news/in-defence-of-the-figurative-and... and http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/language-literally-losing-its-meaning http://www.theguardian.com/science/shortcuts/2013/aug/14/lan... for more discussion.
  - javert 12y ago
    If you're interested, take a look at my comment which is a nephew to your comment. Here is the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8808616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8808616
- peteretep 12y ago
  > it is incorrect regardless of your views on rules of > language If you've managed to stumble upon an English-language equivalent of Académie française or the Icelandic Language Institute, with the power to define right and wrong in English, I'm sure we'd all love a link... Generally the closest thing we have is "one particular dictionary" (OED) but it aims to be descriptive, rather the prescriptive. However, regarding: > That isn't correct usage You can probably learn something unexpected from: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17337706
  - javert 12y ago
    When people change the language in ways that make it inferior for any reason (including due to being confusing), that is incorrect. It's also incorrect to use wood to build a house that is twice the thickness needed. It's also incorrect to build a rocket that uses an inferior type of fuel. These are not matters of social dictat. We don't need an Academie francaise for English because we should be taught the above principle in school and we should correct others when they make mistakes, in appropriate circumstances. Another principle: We should change the language to improve it when it is trivial to do so; so even if "literal" were well-established in the opposite meaning, we now know better and should stop doing it. But I do not believe it is well-established, despite the article you linked.
    - peteretep 12y ago
      Here is something for you to go away and think about... You talk about language as being "confusing" or "inferior". You clearly have strongly held criteria for those. Where have they come from? Has the English language changed in the last 1,000 years? How have you decided which of those changes to adopt? Were all those changes improvements, given your strongly held criteria? What about in the last 500 years? Which year did the version of English that you believe is most "correct" or "superior" occur? Are we currently at "peak" English? What improvement would modifying the meaning of "literal" bring? Do you know what the word etymology means? Does the etymology of "literal" support your desire to change its meaning? If the root of a word has subtly changed between its Classical roots and emergence in Anglo-Norman French, Middle English, or whatever, which of these is superior? If the root is unclear, and could be Latin or Greek, and has subtly different meanings, which is the right one to use? What about modern English words that have been adopted from - say - Hindi? ... Having pondered those, perhaps you could examine the rest of your comment. In the phrase "the thickness needed", what criteria define 'needed'? Cost? Durability? Ability to restrict noise? Foundation strength? Could these criteria change from house to house? Could people hold different opinions on those subjects, and both be right? In the phrase "inferior type of fuel", what constitutes 'inferior'? Could safety margins vs cost lead two experts to come up with different opinions on which fuel was superior?

jackvalentine 12y ago

Pedanticism of this nature is literally the key to living a frustrated and lonely life. You asked for a good faith reply and I gave it to you. You then decided to play your "trick" and point out that you're actually making a totally unrelated grammatical dispute with the original poster. I won't be falling for this again and replying to you further in the future. I hope it feels good to be "right" all the time.

javert 12y ago
I wasn't playing a trick. There are times when using "literally" in the figurative sense actually makes sense, even though I don't approve. But this is not one. So I thought maybe the person actually meant it in the non-figurative sense. If you want evidence that I'm an honest person, look at my comment history. I don't go around tricking people and trying to win arguments by deception. In fact, I frequently call people out for being nasty in various ways, much like you are doing here. I can understand why you think I'm trying to trick people and I was worried that would happen. That's why I talked about historical and quasi-examples of people buying careers. I didn't want you to think or feel that I was playing a trick.
- throwawaymsft 12y ago
  Please realize language has ambiguities and is not a program that is compiled. Deliberately nitpicking the meaning of words from someone who is generously offering to clarify a statement for you looks like a sign of bad faith. Use a charitable interpretation and figure out the idea he/she was getting at. Clearly, money/power/fame/beauty can "buy" things even if there is no currency changing hands. That is the point the previous poster was making. Wealth is influence, and influence gets you favors, like a foot into a career.
  - javert 12y ago
    Yes, parts of this conversation reflect poor judgement on my part. I wasn't thinking too hard about it at the time.
  - 12y ago