• my_hat_stinks
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Hard disagree; it’s not a useful comment precisely because it’s prescriptivism. It’s suggesting people are incorrect because they’re using a commonly accepted meaning of a word, that’s just not how language works.

    Edit: Perhaps I should be clearer. The “less vs fewer” rule was invented roughly 200 years ago and doesn’t actually hold true, “less” has been used this way for far longer. It’s the epitome of “I want English to work this way, fuck everyone else”.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Interesting! Today I learned, then. Thanks.

      Now, and this I’m going to say in a sort-of tongue-in-cheek manner, what’s your opinion on the recent change of the meaning of “literally”? Because that one is definitely less (ha!) than 200 years old.

      • my_hat_stinks
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        According to this list it was used figuratively by Jane Austen, who I believe died more than 200 years ago. That page also claims the earliest known use is 1769, so it’s probably less than 300 years in writing? It’s moot either way, if you’re going for an etymological argument you could go further and say literally should mean anything to do with letters or writing, from the original Latin literalis/litteralis “of or belonging to letters or writing”.

        • El Barto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I wasn’t going for an ethymological argument. Plenty of examples of words whose meaning veered away from its ethymology.

          But the recent popularization of literally as a synonym of figuratively, well, it literally rustles my jimmies.