Yes, it bothers me more than it should when people misuse that and other words. I was raised by a schoolteacher, I can’t help it.
My mother-in-law was telling us about something funny that happened to her, and she said “I literally laughed my ass off!” Fortunately for her, I am quite fond of her, so I didn’t unleash the rage beast. heh. Hubby and I both went off about it on the way home, though.
My general thought on grammar n’ language 'n whatnot is that if the intended meaning is accurately conveyed to the intended audience then in no way did you misuse it.
I think it’s ironic that people who complain about others’ misuse of literally often misuse “they”, “they’re”, and “their” - especially when it’s a singular pronoun so none of those are appropriate. Wait, is that the correct use of ironic?
I think the universe has scooped that rule here. Those have been deemed to be acceptable for gender-neutral singularity or something by somebody or other. Anyway I’m now cool about it…
@Pantheist I feel like language is more of a living thing, constantly changing with meanings shifting. The practice, even if taught as being wrong, of making “they” the default gender-neutral third person singular pronoun has become the de facto standard. If supporters of ne/ve/xe/ze/zi can get those widely accepted, more power to them, but to me it seems like one might as well tell the sea where it is allowed as dictate how a language should evolve. We can be frustrated by language changes or we can adapt.
@jqubed How about both? I’ll understand what others mean, but be privately frustrated by it. No more frustrated than by the misuse of literally, by which I mean a pang that passes almost immediately. That said, if the misuse of literally is what we’re discussing I figured it was worth bringing up.
@Pantheist Either the incorrect use of “ironic” or just plain wrong. You pick.
While I’m certainly open to (yea, eager for) gender neutral singular pronouns . . .
As @jqubed explained, there’s nothing close to broad acceptance of (hell, I’m not sure there’s even much knowledge about) the options you advocate for. Get back to me when you’ve got some numbers.
While it may be regrettable and slightly ambiguous, the use of “they” for the singular has substantial precedent. Compare also the double duty done by the English second person pronouns, which, again, may be regrettable (and I’m a big fan of “y’all,” but honestly, in the South, “y’all” is often used and/or understood as singular; sigh).
I generally consider myself a descriptivist, but the misuse of “literally” effectively renders the word meaningless. When “literally” means “figuratively” (effectively its opposite), what doesn’t it mean? I still use “literally” in its old sense, usually qualifying it more-or-less as such (and if you’re not lucky, accompanied by a rant against the morons who misuse it). I’m a big fan of the thesaurus and do explore alternatives, but I don’t find that any of them quite replaces “literally” (most folks misunderstand the proper use of a thesaurus anyway, but that’s another rant for another day). Those who misuse “literally” have stolen a perfectly useful word from us, rendered it nonsensical and useless. It has at times literally left me nauseated.
Apples and brussels sprouts. Sure, maybe there’s a distant sort of connection, but not much.
@Pantheist It’s ironic how I literally have no idea that the hell “ne, ve, xe, ze and zi for gender neutral” is. I Googled a couple of 'em & got nothing…
@joelmw I disagree. There is a significant difference between singular and plural.
As far as numbers go, I’d say that more people use ‘he’ when they not referring to a man than use ‘they’ to refer to one person. Just because a lot of people do it doesn’t mean it’s a good solution.
edit: same argument applies re: ‘people have been doing it a long time’
@Pantheist Well, I essentially Googled ne & ve.
I thought it ironic how I literally got no gender stuff.
I virtually did get Nebraska and Venezuela.
How paradoxical.
@f00l Coincidentally I’ve transcended in my pedantry and now bemoan the lack of distinction between “we” that includes the listener (you, me and my friends) and “we” that excludes the listener (me and my friends).
@Pantheist I didn’t say that I think the difference is insignificant. In fact I specifically said that the confusion of singular and plural is regrettable (and otherwise implied that I didn’t like it). But even given the difference and given how unfortunate the confusion is, that doesn’t negate the reality that it’s part of the language.
And, to be clear, I agree that neither a lot of people doing something nor people doing a thing a particular way for a long time makes something good.
I just think the comparison (between “literally” and “they” as singular) is weak, and your insistence that everyone should know better and be using “ne, ve, xe, ze and zi” immediately strained. I can’t imagine any venue (professional, interpersonal, social media, etc.) in which I might do so without encountering confusion (and likely quiet or overt derision) and creating an encumbrance to communication. So even if I did want to introduce the terms–and I may–I think a more strategic and tempered approach would be advisable.
I appreciate your passion and I’m not unsympathetic, but the simple fact of your insistence doesn’t change the reality.
I followed some of the links off of your search above and learned some things. So thank you for that. I’ll look into it further. I was going to suggest that you take a slightly different approach, but what the fuck, arguably it actually worked on me, so good on ya. Be advised that I’m rarely accused of being normal or of representing the majority of humans.
@joelmw@daveinwarsh@Pantheist It’s worth pointing out that this issue is quite important to the trans/genderqueer community, particularly agender folks & enbies… And while plenty do adopt this or that new pronoun, many are very appreciative of singular ‘they’ because they’d prefer to not have one more fucking thing to have to explain to everyone. It’s a fine debate to have, I guess, but there’s enough precedent for singular ‘they’, just respect someone if that’s their pronoun.
@Pantheist I see “they” used frequently for singles. For example, if someone wants to speak in generalities, they often use that word. I don’t know of a word that could be used in the preceding sentence that would convey the same idea to an equally broad audience.
@f00l I literally do it all the time. But I don’t literally do it all the time. Sometimes I may LITERALLY do it “all the time”. Which means I’m LITERALLY doing it some of the time.
/giphy literally
@awk Anyone know if there’s a way to find the source of this (or any given) image? I’m not sure, but it looks very much like it’s from a game I love to play. Just being curious.
Search for the gif … not sure if I installed something for that but in Chrome I have a right-click menu item that reads “Search Google for Image”. In this case, it just returns the Airplane movie. Nope.
Extract the first frame and search for that… in this case it turns up a game called “War Thunder”. Boom! Is that it?
I don’t know an easy way to extract frames from gifs other than using ImageMagick at the command line:
@thejackalope In addition to what @awk said, TinEye is another decent reverse image search, but the GIF returned no results here (I didn’t try pulling a single frame).
@awk@brhfl Thanks for the suggestions. I did try the right-click and search google for image. It just depends on what the frame is showing when you do it I found out after the fact. Yes! It is from Warthunder. I was just trying not to hijack things away from the main conversation.
Let me put it this way: I do not appreciate people misusing our language. The fact that the errors of a few people can change the meaning of a word to the polar opposite literally angers me. However, as long as I am not nearby to correct them, I do not care how other people speak.
@DVDBZN
In my philosophy of language, such as it is (I am an idiot), the language itself “wants” to change and flow, so to speak. I’m good with it. This is what languages and rivers and common ways of thinking and eroding landscapes do.
@f00l
I agree, words are added when new ones are needed, and old ones just go out of style when not needed.
But the error of a few should not change the definition for everyone. Does that mean we should change the meaning of every exaggerated phrase to be literal? Nay! Let them continue using that to express their exaggeration. (If literally now also means figuratively, then that defeats the original purpose.)
@DVDBZN
The special usage of “the few” doesn’t change meaning across the culture, unless those few are experts of some sort, or steeped in a new tech, or poets/artists/influencers/whatever.
Remember the appearance of “normalcy”? One instance of Presidential use made that word happen. It’s an ugly word, and it reminds me of Nixon. So sometimes I use it when something seems “Nixonian”.
Usage normally changes across the culture by gathering weight among the many. I’m good with that. We can always invent new ways to clarify meaning, if needed; unless we live within the Beltway. Then we can invent to ways to obfuscate meaning. It’s What They Do.
@DrunkCat This is an erroneous and dangerous line of thought. It implies that what’s official, documented or widely accepted (not to mention, what’s legal or what’s orthodox) is right. I’m not sure I could disagree with this more. Literally.
I don’t care who calls it “official,” it’s still a misuse.
Dictionaries themselves should be understood as chronicles of the way we use language and not dogmatic authorities to be slavishly obeyed. Even when I agree with what a dictionary (in terms of authority, I don’t accept the idea of “the dictionary”) says (and even though I find them generally instructive), I wouldn’t ever say that a dictionary categorically captures what a word means and how it should be used; at best it captures a snapshot from a particular perspective of a skeleton of a moment in time that’s lost as soon as it’s recorded. It’s simply not possible for a dictionary to be completely correct and authoritative. Not even the OED does that.
That being said, most folks could stand to consult and be guided by dictionaries and grammars far more than they are. But in this case, we’re talking about recently-accepted, dubious and exceptional shift and a use that’s arguably colloquial or even outright slang. If nothing else, “literally” is in many ways an outlier, and attempting to make its (note: some dictionaries qualify as informal) secondary dictionary definition an absolute standard misunderstands much about language.
Well too bad. English isn’t a prescriptive language. If you want more thought and consideration put into it then stick to French. English for better or for worse is dictated by common usage. So the lexicon that the majority of speakers uses is official, and English Dictionaries do their best to reflect that, hence why they are updated so regularly.
@DrunkCat Not only have you ignored or misunderstood most of what I said, your summary explanation of how English work contains, well, far too much meaningless bullshit for me to wade through today. Just by way of analogy, I’d characterize your response up there with those who believe that once, oh, let’s say, a presidential election is over we should all placidly resign ourselves to the results, submit to whatever dumbfuckery arises, etc. To them and you, my answer is, “No thanks. Go fuck yourself.”
Ok I disagree about the purported “comic/casual misuse” of literally.
But …
Dictionaries themselves should be understood as chronicles of the way we use language and not dogmatic authorities to be slavishly obeyed. Even when I agree with what a dictionary (in terms of authority, I don’t accept the idea of “the dictionary”) says (and even though I find them generally instructive), I wouldn’t ever say that a dictionary categorically captures what a word means and how it should be used; at best it captures a snapshot from a particular perspective of a skeleton of a moment in time that’s lost as soon as it’s recorded. It’s simply not possible for a dictionary to be completely correct and authoritative. Not even the OED does that.
@DrunkCat Confronted with the insistence that I acquiesce to mob rule, and with someone who stubbornly refuses to read or understand what I’ve said and repeatedly puts words in my mouth and insults me, I’m comfortable that “go fuck yourself” is exactly as classy as I need to be. It’s increasingly unamusing to me how many folks in this culture of ours act like assholes but then get their feelers hurt when they’re treated appropriately in response. Or maybe “fuck” bothers you? I care even less about that.
@joelmw I’m sorry that explaining yourself is beneath you. I’m not sure the projection is necessary though, for I was not wounded nor even bothered. It was an amusing observation that you took such offense to the fact that the English language is descriptive. Like pointing out how you think “Go fuck yourself” can be classy in any situation.
I mean, you don’t like that English is descriptive. That’s fine, I don’t either but that’s the reality we live in. If there was something I said you misunderstood or didn’t get I would gladly explain, rather than just deflect and chuck insults.
@DrunkCat If you’d asked for an explanation, I’d have gladly given it. You in fact seem hell-bent on precluding anything that’s contrary to what you’re already sure you know, what you’re confident is true, what you assert as “reality.”
Your use of “descriptive” is a little muddled. Yes, languages describe–among other things. We might agree on that.
The suggestion that English is categorically governed by descriptivism and isn’t at all subject to rules would be laughed at by any educated descriptivist.
I think I’ve mentioned somewhere here that I lean to descriptivism myself. Part of what was so grating about your overly-confident assertion was the irony of your clinging so desperately to the “official,” of your asserting your relativism so absolutely and of your failure, in the name of both, to grant any quarter to variance or opinion.
And when the fuck did motherfuckers around here get so goddamned fucking sensitive about the fucking word “fuck”?
I don’t know what’s going on in your life to still be riled up over something a week old but my advice is to find an opportunity to relax and enjoy life. I mean, I’m not even sure what I did that can constitute as “hell-bent on precluding anything that’s contrary”. Not to mention that fourth paragraph, no clue whats going on in there (asserting my relativism absolutely?). Either way, again
@davido You lost me at “most.” I don’t disagree on the general point. The pretentious misuse of “whom” and the similarly misguided use of “I” where “me” is called for are arguably as bad or worse. Anyway, all in the same neighborhood, and while I don’t begrudge you your preferred peeve, I can’t quite agree with it.
@davido thanks to you i recently updated an email template where i had used “myself” incorrectly. Thanks for describing the issue so i knew. The people reading that every-2-weeks email for the past 3 years probably thank you too, but since none commented in 3 years, i doubt they knew it was wrong either.
@ACraigL The serial or Oxford comma is a necessity in my mind. I am rabidly (not literally) pro-serial comma. I’m editing a book right now that needs to use UK spelling and punctuation conventions, and it’s driving me bonkers to eliminate and/or not add serial commas.
@ACraigL I’ve decided that I care even less for the argument over the Oxford comma than I do for the comma itself. But I could care less. In any case, Oxford commodians [sic] strike me as the sort of folks who go around looking for something to be scandalized about.
I mostly eschew it, but sometimes use it. No, that doesn’t cause problems. And the arguments for it always boil down to these narrowly construed absurdities, which I find not only uncompelling but desperate, tired and kinda sad. Really, do y’all think that I’m using “tired and sad” appositionally? I care, but not enough to burst a blood vessel. In fact, this particular instance exemplifies a degree of ambiguity that I’m not only willing to live with but might prefer (and certainly do enjoy). That it bothers someone obsessed with the Ox is bonus.
‘Misuse’ implies that people are ignorant of the original definition, which I don’t think is true in most cases. It’s an auto-antonym now, and prescriptivists can go fly a kite.
@anemones JMO, but I don’t agree with either half or your first statement.
I know plenty of people that say things like “He ain’t got no sense” and just because they know its incorrect grammar, but let it slip out anyway doesn’t mean it is not misuse.
I would never call out anyone using “literally”=“figurtively” but in the limited times I have witnessed someone who did, the speaker was oblivious about 60% of the time.
@DrWorm
I know plenty of people who know correct usage or know it pretty well, and deliberately use slang or sloppy or casual or street usage just for atmosphere, fun, connotative implications, or other reasons.
One of those people is sitting in my skin right now.
So I guess I find that to be a legit form of poetics.
(Ha Ha Ha What a fine BS reason to do what I intend to do anyway.)
I dislike the misuse of the word anxious. “I’m anxious to start my vacation tomorrow.” Anxious is from the root anxiety so they probably mean eager to start their vacation and not that they are nervous about it.
Another is the word moot. “It’s a moot point.” Most people use that to mean it’s not worth arguing about and the discussion is over because the answer is so obvious that the final decision has already been made. There’s moot court where people go to argue and it really means: subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
Some dictionaries have been updated to account for these errors.
@cengland0
In the case of moot, aren’t both meanings of long usage?
I know that is the case with the verb cleave.
I just go with the flow. English and other spoken language aren’t math.
Meaning is usually clear from context. If it’s not, I ask; but that’s rarely needed, and when I do need to ask, the confusion is normally a product of unclear thinking, not word def or misuse confusion.
I’m not gonna get upset because someone doesn’t speak w perfect clarity unless they present as experts or something. Even then, I’m
after the clarity, not the correction; unless the person is a jerk.
@smyle Probably my favorite scene from “My Name is Earl” involves a discussion of moot vs mute points. Honestly had never heard moot pronounced “mute” before I saw it, but I love the counterargument.
From Season 3, “Midnight Bun” episode. Approximately minute 16:50.
“They” in the place of he or she literally confuses me. When someone uses ratchet when they mean wretched…“My appearance is ratchet today”… Ugh! Insistance that they’re using ratchet correct makes me a bit crazy!
It drives me nuts.
And I have a teenage daughter who uses it wrong all the time.
And I make fun of her incessantly for it.
And she fully accepts that it’s wrong, but does it anyway (perhaps just because she knows it bugs me).
Using “literally” when one means “figuratively” doesn’t bother me unless the speaker seems hell-bent on displaying his/her obliviousness to the original (preferred) definition.
Perfectly acceptable: “When I heard him say that, it was as if my head literally exploded.”
Okay: “When I heard him say that, my head literally exploded.”
Annoying: “When I heard him say that, my head literally exploded. Literally! LIT-ER-AL-LY!”
My problem is that I’m visually oriented, so when someone is talking, descriptions create a little theater in my head. So when someone says: “I was so upset that I was literally beside myself!” - My mental image is of identical twins consoling each other. When someone says : “That routine was so funny I literally popped a gut!” - I imagine something gruesome, which was likely not what the speaker intended. And : “I just literally died laughing!” - has me mentally attending an open casket funeral, where the grieving family explains that even the best mortician couldn’t get that silly grin off his face.
@joelmw Then you would appreciate my attempts to keep a straight face when, having bought a house in the country, my new next door neighbor smiling said: “It’s really quiet out here. We literally go to bed with the chickens.” I coughed, and said : “Sorry. Um … allergies. Must be the pollen.”
@joelmw You said as much above, but this is my issue with ‘literally’. The word has been repurposed into its antonym without a drop-in replacement. This shit new meaning, on the other hand, could have easily been expressed numerous other ways. I don’t consider myself a prescriptivist, but this is an instance where it feels like something is lost, and nothing is gained.
I ain’t no prescriptivist, but were I, I’d realize that ‘literally’ means “by the letter.” So, I find it unlikely that the most ardent opponents of using ‘literally’ as an intensifier have ever used the word in a non-figurative manner. After all, it’s difficult to imagine something like “closed captioning is a literal transcript of dialogue” popping up in normal conversation.
CLEAVE
Primary Meanings of
cleave
1.
v
separate or cut with a tool, such as a sharp instrument
2.
v
come or be in close contact with; stick or hold together and resist separation
Full Definitions of
cleave
1
v separate or cut with a tool, such as a sharp instrument
“cleave the bone”
Synonyms:
rive, split
Types:
maul
split (wood) with a maul and wedges
laminate
split (wood) into thin sheets
Type of:
tear
to separate or be separated by force
v make by cutting into
“The water is going to cleave a channel into the rock”
Synonyms:
rive, split
separate or cut with a tool, such as a sharp instrument
Type of:
create, make
make or cause to be or to become
2
v come or be in close contact with; stick or hold together and resist separation
Synonyms:
adhere, cling, cohere, stick
adhere, bind, bond, hold fast, stick, stick to
stick to firmly
stick
fasten with an adhesive material like glue
Types:
show 4 types…
Type of:
adjoin, contact, meet, touch
be in direct physical contact with; make contact
Yes, it bothers me more than it should when people misuse that and other words. I was raised by a schoolteacher, I can’t help it.
My mother-in-law was telling us about something funny that happened to her, and she said “I literally laughed my ass off!” Fortunately for her, I am quite fond of her, so I didn’t unleash the rage beast. heh. Hubby and I both went off about it on the way home, though.
@Pony
It is certain
/8ball Did she have any ass left?
@2many2no Yep. We couldn’t help but look.
@Pony
My sources say no
@2many2no
/8ball What about ass right?
@f00l @Pony Hey! No more cracks like that.
@2many2no
Are you Deep Crack?
@f00l NSFW
/youtube slow deep and hard
NSFW (or children) Really.
My general thought on grammar n’ language 'n whatnot is that if the intended meaning is accurately conveyed to the intended audience then in no way did you misuse it.
@nogoodwithnames excellently portrayed by your “'n” n’ stuff
Love it : )
I think it’s ironic that people who complain about others’ misuse of literally often misuse “they”, “they’re”, and “their” - especially when it’s a singular pronoun so none of those are appropriate. Wait, is that the correct use of ironic?
@Pantheist
and singularity
I think the universe has scooped that rule here. Those have been deemed to be acceptable for gender-neutral singularity or something by somebody or other. Anyway I’m now cool about it…
@f00l I’m fine with ne, ve, xe, ze and zi for gender neutral, I still have a problem with they.
@Pantheist I feel like language is more of a living thing, constantly changing with meanings shifting. The practice, even if taught as being wrong, of making “they” the default gender-neutral third person singular pronoun has become the de facto standard. If supporters of ne/ve/xe/ze/zi can get those widely accepted, more power to them, but to me it seems like one might as well tell the sea where it is allowed as dictate how a language should evolve. We can be frustrated by language changes or we can adapt.
@jqubed How about both? I’ll understand what others mean, but be privately frustrated by it. No more frustrated than by the misuse of literally, by which I mean a pang that passes almost immediately. That said, if the misuse of literally is what we’re discussing I figured it was worth bringing up.
@Pantheist Thon is the only true gender neutral pronoun. Anyone who uses “they” for this is sidewalk scum.
@DrunkCat
I’m sidewalk scum then. Cool. Can live with that.
@Pantheist Either the incorrect use of “ironic” or just plain wrong. You pick.
While I’m certainly open to (yea, eager for) gender neutral singular pronouns . . .
Apples and brussels sprouts. Sure, maybe there’s a distant sort of connection, but not much.
@joelmw
I vote for language, meaning, and semantics performed as anarchy.
OTOH I agree with you 10^10^10^10^10^10^10% if you’ll come back over here and rant more often.
@f00l
@Pantheist It’s ironic how I literally have no idea that the hell “ne, ve, xe, ze and zi for gender neutral” is. I Googled a couple of 'em & got nothing…
@joelmw I disagree. There is a significant difference between singular and plural.
As far as numbers go, I’d say that more people use ‘he’ when they not referring to a man than use ‘they’ to refer to one person. Just because a lot of people do it doesn’t mean it’s a good solution.
edit: same argument applies re: ‘people have been doing it a long time’
@daveinwarsh did you though?
@Pantheist Well, I essentially Googled ne & ve.
I thought it ironic how I literally got no gender stuff.
I virtually did get Nebraska and Venezuela.
How paradoxical.
@DrunkCat
@f00l l00ked in @f00mirror.
@f00l saw some strange shit there.
@f00l Coincidentally I’ve transcended in my pedantry and now bemoan the lack of distinction between “we” that includes the listener (you, me and my friends) and “we” that excludes the listener (me and my friends).
@Pantheist I didn’t say that I think the difference is insignificant. In fact I specifically said that the confusion of singular and plural is regrettable (and otherwise implied that I didn’t like it). But even given the difference and given how unfortunate the confusion is, that doesn’t negate the reality that it’s part of the language.
And, to be clear, I agree that neither a lot of people doing something nor people doing a thing a particular way for a long time makes something good.
I just think the comparison (between “literally” and “they” as singular) is weak, and your insistence that everyone should know better and be using “ne, ve, xe, ze and zi” immediately strained. I can’t imagine any venue (professional, interpersonal, social media, etc.) in which I might do so without encountering confusion (and likely quiet or overt derision) and creating an encumbrance to communication. So even if I did want to introduce the terms–and I may–I think a more strategic and tempered approach would be advisable.
I appreciate your passion and I’m not unsympathetic, but the simple fact of your insistence doesn’t change the reality.
I followed some of the links off of your search above and learned some things. So thank you for that. I’ll look into it further. I was going to suggest that you take a slightly different approach, but what the fuck, arguably it actually worked on me, so good on ya.
Be advised that I’m rarely accused of being normal or of representing the majority of humans.
@Pantheist @daveinwarsh What’s funny though is that Google felt it needed to autocorrect “zi” to “zie”.
@joelmw @daveinwarsh @Pantheist It’s worth pointing out that this issue is quite important to the trans/genderqueer community, particularly agender folks & enbies… And while plenty do adopt this or that new pronoun, many are very appreciative of singular ‘they’ because they’d prefer to not have one more fucking thing to have to explain to everyone. It’s a fine debate to have, I guess, but there’s enough precedent for singular ‘they’, just respect someone if that’s their pronoun.
(Not accusing anyone otherwise, mind).
@joelmw honestly, I don’t really care. I just like to argue.
/giphy Consider yourself the winner!
@brhfl
TY
@joelmw
Pearls before swine.
@DrunkCat
Context.
@f00l I use to fedora the muddling of the word literal, now I tip my hat for another linguistic crusade.
@brhfl Whew…
Sorry… I just haven’t been able to keep up with all that.
@DrunkCat
Crusade away, as long as you are having a fine time.
I love pointless and entertaining crusades. Run a few of them now and then, meself.
Nothing like a great excuse for a rant. Once in a while I do a “rant of the day” routine, till people run out of tolerance for it.
@f00l Spoons are always too big.
@DrunkCat
Even coke spoons?
Damn, you have some self-displine.
/image “coke spoon”
@f00l
I’m disappointed.
@DrunkCat I was just thinking about these the other day!
@DrunkCat
Yeah that.
But I am illiterate. Or alliterate. Something, anyway. Esp w modern media.
Diff generations I spoze.
Yeah I remembered. Ok had seen that once. But my personal ref, much lived thru and abused among some who had $, was more:
Tho I never set foot in Studio 54. Was more downtown.
I saw some of:
Without the machine guns tho. Did see a solid 14k gold bowl, about 6-8" across, full of it once.
No spoon was too big then. Long as someone could lift it.
@Pantheist I see “they” used frequently for singles. For example, if someone wants to speak in generalities, they often use that word. I don’t know of a word that could be used in the preceding sentence that would convey the same idea to an equally broad audience.
@moondrake typed, (s)he. Spoken, just pick one.
Read on a t-shirt or bumper sticker somewhere:
Misuse of “literally” makes me figuratively insane.
I had a friend who would misuse the word all the time.
“I literally threw my guts up.” “I literally died laughing.”
We aren’t friends anymore.
Literally Whatever.
Well I can’t be judgey since I literally do it all the time.
@awk
You literally do it all the time?
@f00l I literally do it all the time. But I don’t literally do it all the time. Sometimes I may LITERALLY do it “all the time”. Which means I’m LITERALLY doing it some of the time.
/giphy literally
@awk Anyone know if there’s a way to find the source of this (or any given) image? I’m not sure, but it looks very much like it’s from a game I love to play. Just being curious.
@thejackalope Usually I try reverse image search at https://images.google.com/ :
I don’t know an easy way to extract frames from gifs other than using ImageMagick at the command line:
@thejackalope In addition to what @awk said, TinEye is another decent reverse image search, but the GIF returned no results here (I didn’t try pulling a single frame).
@awk @brhfl Thanks for the suggestions. I did try the right-click and search google for image. It just depends on what the frame is showing when you do it I found out after the fact. Yes! It is from Warthunder. I was just trying not to hijack things away from the main conversation.
@awk
I’m not sure how literal that use of literally is, I mean literally. Can you run a literal computer model?
But not really, and certainly not about hyperbole.
It literally drives me crazy also…
@2many2no Literally my favorite movie quote of all time.
Let me put it this way: I do not appreciate people misusing our language. The fact that the errors of a few people can change the meaning of a word to the polar opposite literally angers me. However, as long as I am not nearby to correct them, I do not care how other people speak.
@DVDBZN
In my philosophy of language, such as it is (I am an idiot), the language itself “wants” to change and flow, so to speak. I’m good with it. This is what languages and rivers and common ways of thinking and eroding landscapes do.
@f00l
I agree, words are added when new ones are needed, and old ones just go out of style when not needed.
But the error of a few should not change the definition for everyone. Does that mean we should change the meaning of every exaggerated phrase to be literal? Nay! Let them continue using that to express their exaggeration. (If literally now also means figuratively, then that defeats the original purpose.)
@DVDBZN
The special usage of “the few” doesn’t change meaning across the culture, unless those few are experts of some sort, or steeped in a new tech, or poets/artists/influencers/whatever.
Remember the appearance of “normalcy”? One instance of Presidential use made that word happen. It’s an ugly word, and it reminds me of Nixon. So sometimes I use it when something seems “Nixonian”.
Usage normally changes across the culture by gathering weight among the many. I’m good with that. We can always invent new ways to clarify meaning, if needed; unless we live within the Beltway. Then we can invent to ways to obfuscate meaning. It’s What They Do.
It’s not really a misuse anymore since it’s part of the official definition.
@DrunkCat This is an erroneous and dangerous line of thought. It implies that what’s official, documented or widely accepted (not to mention, what’s legal or what’s orthodox) is right. I’m not sure I could disagree with this more. Literally.
I don’t care who calls it “official,” it’s still a misuse.
Dictionaries themselves should be understood as chronicles of the way we use language and not dogmatic authorities to be slavishly obeyed. Even when I agree with what a dictionary (in terms of authority, I don’t accept the idea of “the dictionary”) says (and even though I find them generally instructive), I wouldn’t ever say that a dictionary categorically captures what a word means and how it should be used; at best it captures a snapshot from a particular perspective of a skeleton of a moment in time that’s lost as soon as it’s recorded. It’s simply not possible for a dictionary to be completely correct and authoritative. Not even the OED does that.
That being said, most folks could stand to consult and be guided by dictionaries and grammars far more than they are. But in this case, we’re talking about recently-accepted, dubious and exceptional shift and a use that’s arguably colloquial or even outright slang. If nothing else, “literally” is in many ways an outlier, and attempting to make its (note: some dictionaries qualify as informal) secondary dictionary definition an absolute standard misunderstands much about language.
@joelmw
Well too bad. English isn’t a prescriptive language. If you want more thought and consideration put into it then stick to French. English for better or for worse is dictated by common usage. So the lexicon that the majority of speakers uses is official, and English Dictionaries do their best to reflect that, hence why they are updated so regularly.
When it comes to English, it’s majority mob rule.
@DrunkCat Not only have you ignored or misunderstood most of what I said, your summary explanation of how English work contains, well, far too much meaningless bullshit for me to wade through today. Just by way of analogy, I’d characterize your response up there with those who believe that once, oh, let’s say, a presidential election is over we should all placidly resign ourselves to the results, submit to whatever dumbfuckery arises, etc. To them and you, my answer is, “No thanks. Go fuck yourself.”
@joelmw “I don’t understand what you said therefore go fuck yourself.” Stay classy.
@joelmw
Ok I disagree about the purported “comic/casual misuse” of literally.
But …
I am now a blob of quivering ecstasy.
/giphy esctatic joy
@DrunkCat Confronted with the insistence that I acquiesce to mob rule, and with someone who stubbornly refuses to read or understand what I’ve said and repeatedly puts words in my mouth and insults me, I’m comfortable that “go fuck yourself” is exactly as classy as I need to be. It’s increasingly unamusing to me how many folks in this culture of ours act like assholes but then get their feelers hurt when they’re treated appropriately in response. Or maybe “fuck” bothers you? I care even less about that.
/giphy are you drunk?
@joelmw I’m sorry that explaining yourself is beneath you. I’m not sure the projection is necessary though, for I was not wounded nor even bothered. It was an amusing observation that you took such offense to the fact that the English language is descriptive. Like pointing out how you think “Go fuck yourself” can be classy in any situation.
I mean, you don’t like that English is descriptive. That’s fine, I don’t either but that’s the reality we live in. If there was something I said you misunderstood or didn’t get I would gladly explain, rather than just deflect and chuck insults.
@DrunkCat If you’d asked for an explanation, I’d have gladly given it. You in fact seem hell-bent on precluding anything that’s contrary to what you’re already sure you know, what you’re confident is true, what you assert as “reality.”
Your use of “descriptive” is a little muddled. Yes, languages describe–among other things. We might agree on that.
The suggestion that English is categorically governed by descriptivism and isn’t at all subject to rules would be laughed at by any educated descriptivist.
I think I’ve mentioned somewhere here that I lean to descriptivism myself. Part of what was so grating about your overly-confident assertion was the irony of your clinging so desperately to the “official,” of your asserting your relativism so absolutely and of your failure, in the name of both, to grant any quarter to variance or opinion.
And when the fuck did motherfuckers around here get so goddamned fucking sensitive about the fucking word “fuck”?
@joelmw
I don’t know what’s going on in your life to still be riled up over something a week old but my advice is to find an opportunity to relax and enjoy life. I mean, I’m not even sure what I did that can constitute as “hell-bent on precluding anything that’s contrary”. Not to mention that fourth paragraph, no clue whats going on in there (asserting my relativism absolutely?). Either way, again
/giphy Relax
The most egregious error are those that change “me” to “myself”, believing it makes them appear more intelligent.
“Please see John or myself”. ARG.
Only I can see myself.
Literally.
@davido
Or when they try to be correct in using “I”, but still fail: “Please visit John and I.”
@davido You lost me at “most.” I don’t disagree on the general point. The pretentious misuse of “whom” and the similarly misguided use of “I” where “me” is called for are arguably as bad or worse. Anyway, all in the same neighborhood, and while I don’t begrudge you your preferred peeve, I can’t quite agree with it.
@davido thanks to you i recently updated an email template where i had used “myself” incorrectly. Thanks for describing the issue so i knew. The people reading that every-2-weeks email for the past 3 years probably thank you too, but since none commented in 3 years, i doubt they knew it was wrong either.
I could care less about how people use the word literally.
@MrMark Perhaps you mean that you couldn’t care less.
@mehnyblooms
@MrMark Excellent! You just hit on one of my pet peeves - even more than the misuse of literally. Sorry.
@MrMark
I could care less than you couldn’t care.
@MrMark Me too.
I don’t have a problem with the misuse. I hate the overuse. Learn some other ways to express emphasis, people.
Saying “free” or “absolutely free” when something isn’t sucks.
@ws1o I’m seeing new commercials that say you can get a second one free, just pay a separate fee.
@cengland0 A one-time fee you pay annually
Oxford Comma. Discuss.
@ACraigL The serial or Oxford comma is a necessity in my mind. I am rabidly (not literally) pro-serial comma. I’m editing a book right now that needs to use UK spelling and punctuation conventions, and it’s driving me bonkers to eliminate and/or not add serial commas.
@ACraigL An Oxford comma could cost you thousands of dollars
@Daeghrafen
My preference is as yours here.
@ACraigL
@ACraigL I’ve decided that I care even less for the argument over the Oxford comma than I do for the comma itself. But I could care less. In any case, Oxford commodians [sic] strike me as the sort of folks who go around looking for something to be scandalized about.
I mostly eschew it, but sometimes use it. No, that doesn’t cause problems. And the arguments for it always boil down to these narrowly construed absurdities, which I find not only uncompelling but desperate, tired and kinda sad. Really, do y’all think that I’m using “tired and sad” appositionally? I care, but not enough to burst a blood vessel. In fact, this particular instance exemplifies a degree of ambiguity that I’m not only willing to live with but might prefer (and certainly do enjoy). That it bothers someone obsessed with the Ox is bonus.
In other words, meh.
@joelmw
Do you mean:
Meh, Meh, and Meh?
Or
Meh, Meh and Meh?
(OMG either way that sounds like the name of a Beltway lobbying firm.)
@ACraigL http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-21/the-case-of-the-$13-million-comma/8372956
‘Misuse’ implies that people are ignorant of the original definition, which I don’t think is true in most cases. It’s an auto-antonym now, and prescriptivists can go fly a kite.
@anemones JMO, but I don’t agree with either half or your first statement.
I know plenty of people that say things like “He ain’t got no sense” and just because they know its incorrect grammar, but let it slip out anyway doesn’t mean it is not misuse.
I would never call out anyone using “literally”=“figurtively” but in the limited times I have witnessed someone who did, the speaker was oblivious about 60% of the time.
@DrWorm
I know plenty of people who know correct usage or know it pretty well, and deliberately use slang or sloppy or casual or street usage just for atmosphere, fun, connotative implications, or other reasons.
One of those people is sitting in my skin right now.
So I guess I find that to be a legit form of poetics.
(Ha Ha Ha What a fine BS reason to do what I intend to do anyway.
)
I dislike the misuse of the word anxious. “I’m anxious to start my vacation tomorrow.” Anxious is from the root anxiety so they probably mean eager to start their vacation and not that they are nervous about it.
Another is the word moot. “It’s a moot point.” Most people use that to mean it’s not worth arguing about and the discussion is over because the answer is so obvious that the final decision has already been made. There’s moot court where people go to argue and it really means: subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.
Some dictionaries have been updated to account for these errors.
@cengland0 Or, as I’ve heard people say: “It’s a mute point”. I always want to tape their mouths shut to prove their points.
@cengland0
In the case of moot, aren’t both meanings of long usage?
I know that is the case with the verb cleave.
I just go with the flow. English and other spoken language aren’t math.
Meaning is usually clear from context. If it’s not, I ask; but that’s rarely needed, and when I do need to ask, the confusion is normally a product of unclear thinking, not word def or misuse confusion.
I’m not gonna get upset because someone doesn’t speak w perfect clarity unless they present as experts or something. Even then, I’m
after the clarity, not the correction; unless the person is a jerk.
@smyle Probably my favorite scene from “My Name is Earl” involves a discussion of moot vs mute points. Honestly had never heard moot pronounced “mute” before I saw it, but I love the counterargument.
From Season 3, “Midnight Bun” episode. Approximately minute 16:50.
“They” in the place of he or she literally confuses me. When someone uses ratchet when they mean wretched…“My appearance is ratchet today”… Ugh! Insistance that they’re using ratchet correct makes me a bit crazy!
It drives me nuts.
And I have a teenage daughter who uses it wrong all the time.
And I make fun of her incessantly for it.
And she fully accepts that it’s wrong, but does it anyway (perhaps just because she knows it bugs me).
Don’t let her get your goat. Literally.
@smyle But you’re fine with the morphological leveling that has led to “wrong” being an adverb, I see.
@tristero Heh, apparently so.
@tristero
42
Everything’s an adverb.
Q.E.D.
Using “literally” when one means “figuratively” doesn’t bother me unless the speaker seems hell-bent on displaying his/her obliviousness to the original (preferred) definition.
Perfectly acceptable: “When I heard him say that, it was as if my head literally exploded.”
Okay: “When I heard him say that, my head literally exploded.”
Annoying: “When I heard him say that, my head literally exploded. Literally! LIT-ER-AL-LY!”
@DrWorm
I’m sorry but I disagree. The last one is the funniest and I love it.
My problem is that I’m visually oriented, so when someone is talking, descriptions create a little theater in my head. So when someone says: “I was so upset that I was literally beside myself!” - My mental image is of identical twins consoling each other. When someone says : “That routine was so funny I literally popped a gut!” - I imagine something gruesome, which was likely not what the speaker intended. And : “I just literally died laughing!” - has me mentally attending an open casket funeral, where the grieving family explains that even the best mortician couldn’t get that silly grin off his face.
@rockblossom I
this. Not literally, like with spurting blood and all of that, but, yaknow, I’m full of affection, admiration etc. And thank you.
@joelmw Then you would appreciate my attempts to keep a straight face when, having bought a house in the country, my new next door neighbor smiling said: “It’s really quiet out here. We literally go to bed with the chickens.” I coughed, and said : “Sorry. Um … allergies. Must be the pollen.”
@rockblossom
@rockblossom Reminds me of one of my all time favorite bits from Kids in the Hall:
@joelmw Yay Chicken Lady! Hubby and I often mimic her when I cook chicken for dinner.
They effectively rendered a word meaningless. No big deal.
Dumb fuckers. I hate them. Maybe literally.
@joelmw
I approve of language as anarchy.
But I also approve of people who hate Dumb Fuckers.
Keep on Hating. ; )
@joelmw You said as much above, but this is my issue with ‘literally’. The word has been repurposed into its antonym without a drop-in replacement. This shit new meaning, on the other hand, could have easily been expressed numerous other ways. I don’t consider myself a prescriptivist, but this is an instance where it feels like something is lost, and nothing is gained.
@brhfl I think we are in 100% agreement. And I don’t dislike the way I said it, but I like the way you said it too–and the aspects you shed light on.
grammar nannies bother me more than bad grammar.
I ‘literally’ thought of this video (and its subsequent sequels) when posed with today’s question
I find this aggravating, literally.
No one around me uses the word incorrectly. Am I living in a bubble?
@KDemo Looks like a pretty nice bubble!
@brhfl - Thanks! So you like what I’ve done with the place?
I ain’t no prescriptivist, but were I, I’d realize that ‘literally’ means “by the letter.” So, I find it unlikely that the most ardent opponents of using ‘literally’ as an intensifier have ever used the word in a non-figurative manner. After all, it’s difficult to imagine something like “closed captioning is a literal transcript of dialogue” popping up in normal conversation.
I think all of you are overthinking this subject just take it easy and let people talk like they want to!
you All just need to sit the hell down and think about what you just made a topic of. you just made a topic that is as dumb as hell!
@hayden0323
We’re here.
/image “they’re here”
@hayden0323 But not literally as dumb as hell, right?
@rockblossom
Laterally. And laterly. And slatternly.
Dumb.As.Hell.
yes! you get my drift. everyone this rockblossom knows there crap.
Literally is hardly the only word that is its own antonym.
@DrunkCat
Literally
CLEAVE
Primary Meanings of
cleave
1.
v
separate or cut with a tool, such as a sharp instrument
2.
v
come or be in close contact with; stick or hold together and resist separation
Full Definitions of
cleave
1
v separate or cut with a tool, such as a sharp instrument
“cleave the bone”
Synonyms:
rive, split
Types:
maul
split (wood) with a maul and wedges
laminate
split (wood) into thin sheets
Type of:
tear
to separate or be separated by force
v make by cutting into
“The water is going to cleave a channel into the rock”
Synonyms:
rive, split
separate or cut with a tool, such as a sharp instrument
Type of:
create, make
make or cause to be or to become
2
v come or be in close contact with; stick or hold together and resist separation
Synonyms:
adhere, cling, cohere, stick
adhere, bind, bond, hold fast, stick, stick to
stick to firmly
stick
fasten with an adhesive material like glue
Types:
show 4 types…
Type of:
adjoin, contact, meet, touch
be in direct physical contact with; make contact
@f00l Why didn’t anyone tell me Meh fucked up my link.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/57032/25-words-are-their-own-opposites