EDIT: you guys have dug up some truly horrible pisstakes :D Thank you for those.

To the serious folk - relax a little. This is Mildly Infuriating, not I'm dying if this doesn't stop. As a non-native speaker I was taught a certain way to use the language. The rules were not written down by me, nor the teachers - it was done by the native folk. Peace!

  • bitwaba@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    9 个月前

    What is the line for language evolution ?

    If I start calling dogs “cats” tomorrow, am I wrong? Or have I just taken the first steps towards making my mark on the English language?

    • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      9 个月前

      If I start calling dogs “cats” tomorrow, am I wrong?

      If your audience knows what you mean? No. If your audience has no idea what you mean? Yes.

      Or have I just taken the first steps towards making my mark on the English language?

      If it becomes a norm? Yes.

      But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? We were talking about literally, and how it is literally (the way you mean it) a contranym now. Using it to only mean figuratively (the way you want it to be used), especially when it had been used that way for a long time and even has a history of using is no longer “idiotic” it’s just a common usage of the term. It mildly irks me too, however, I can’t remember the last time I was actually confused by the intent of the speaker.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        9 个月前

        Well, my personal options on literally are that it is not being used to mean figuratively, it is being used in a figurative manner for weight and effect. The same way that yeah and right are both positive/agreement words, but can be used in a figurative manner to mean the opposite. If someone says “they turned the frogs gay!” And someone responds “riiiiiiiiiight…”, right still means “that statement is correct” but it was used with an inflection that implies the opposite. That doesn’t mean the dictionary definition of right now needs to be updated to fall in line with 21st century sarcastic smart ass linguistics.

        So, I dont actually think the definition of literally has changed, and I disagree with any dictionary that says it has and now needs to include an additional definition of the word that means the opposite.

        The reason I was asking is because you, like me, seem to care about this more than the average person. So I was curious of your thought on the matter in hopes that I might gain some additional insight on the matter that I didn’t have before.

        It mildly irks me too, however, I can’t remember the last time I was actually confused by the intent of the speaker.

        That’s the same feeling I would have if someone told me a story where they were “habilitated by fear” instead of “debilitated by fear”. I know what they mean. That doesn’t mean the word they used means the same thing though.