Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Dunno this seems more serious than "I'm doing good" vs "I'm doing well".  It's literally adding the opposite of the word as a valid definition.  By which I mean it's actually doing exactly that, I am not just exaggerating, and I have to explain that in several words because "literally" no longer serves that purpose.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Akura]

I seem to have developed a habit of flossing my teeth when I'm bored.

I'm not sure why anyone would keep bread in the refrigerator, while it slightly lengthens the time before it molds it makes it go stale tons faster (like in days instead of weeks faster). In fact googling "foods you shouldn't refrigerate" brings up bread as one of the top things (along with stuff like tomatoes and many other fruits).

We put our bread in the fridge, and it usually goes fast enough to not go stale in the meantime. We also refrigerate the tomatoes and other fruits. As for the butter, my stepdad has an annoying tendency to leave it out of the fridge for hours after he's done using it.

I mean I could understand that happening in the US, but in the UK? Really?

In the US?! The First Amendment, something ALL Americans hold more dear than even the Second Amendment(that's why it's first ), specifically forbids that kind of thing.

[Sergarr]

I mean I could understand that happening in the US, but in the UK? Really?

In the US?! The First Amendment, something ALL Americans hold more dear than even the Second Amendment(that's why it's first ), specifically forbids that kind of thing.

Except when it's to combat terrorism. Then it's all fine and dandy.

[Avis-Mergulus]

I really don't mind changing the language to fit actual usage, but this literally makes it harder to communicate.

This right here contains a bit of a contradiction - the only thing we have to look at for language change is actual usage - that is, whether a word or construction is used or not in actual communication. Subjective "ease of communication" has very little to do with it. The use of "literally" that we're talking about occurs only within a particular social/age group, into the linguistic paradigm of which it apparently fits - perhaps the people who use it don't use "literally" to mean "exactly the thing", I dunno, English isn't even my first language. Perhaps you don't, for some reason, fit into the age/social group among which this usage is prevalent, and therefore it impedes communication for you, but not for them. The only valid criterion we have is whether it's widely used in normal speech - which it apparently is.

This is verging into sociolinguistics territory enragement child

[Flying Dice]

One of the funny quirks of the prescriptive vs. descriptive battle is the way people so quickly change sides based on whether words they care about are on the table. Using "literally" in hyperbole isn't an issue, linguistically, but that's not really what we're talking about. It falls into the same pool as "epic" and "awesome" as words used by idiots to make what they say seem more important by cranking the modifier dials up to 11; I've caught myself using "literally" the same way from time to time, not as intentional hyperbole or in the actual sense of the word, but as an unintentional exaggeration, and it's fucking poisonous.

Take as a counterpoint "cool" and "sweet"; when those entered the vernacular as slang, there was an intention behind it. They convey a qualitative meaning, associating the thing they're describing with the same qualities that they're associated with. This is where the descriptive approach shines: this is good.

Neither approach is wholly appropriate to linguistics; one is dogmatic, inflexible, and kills the potential for a language to grow, while the other dilutes all meaning in the name of laziness and ignorance. The growth of language should be focused on fostering expansion of meaning, development of new meaning, creation of further clarifying distinctions, &c., while avoiding the diluting or destruction of temporally relevant meaning and the breakdown of important distinctions. I.e. you can safely discard an anachronistic meaning with no place in the contemporary use of the language, but eroding the distinction between "metaphorically" and "literally" because people are stupid or lazy isn't acceptable.

[Avis-Mergulus]

Do you believe that we can affect or regulate language (that is, informal spoken language) in any manner besides using or not using specific words or constructions? Is there really any "approach" there?
Does the distinction between "literally" and "metaphorically" exist or not exist because of any effort we make?
I believe that it is no matter because:
1. The usage we're talking about is more or less niche.
2. Language changes itself to fit the meanings that have to be expressed, which change rarely. Even if "literally" came to equal "metaphorically" in all sociolects, a new word expressing the meaning of "metaphorically" would arise, because people have a need to express that meaning. It has happened before multiple times - I mean, this same exact situation.
3. Also it doesn't mean "metaphorically" - it's just an intensifier. I think. Maybe. Do I look like an expert on American slang?

[Rolan7]

I guess it's kinda like the 80's slang of calling things "bad" when they're actually good.  (Because again, this is giving an *opposite* meaning to the word).  Except there are a dozen other easy ways to call something bad, so it wasn't a big deal.  "Literally" serves, or served, an important purpose in removing confusion.  It was a specialized word to show that exaggeration wasn't happening.

But instead it's now used to exaggerate.  Apparently any word with any impact has to become a meaningless intensifier, until it's used up and discarded for another.  I mean, it's truly fine to misuse words, particularly in casual speech.  Context and inflection usually make the meaning clear.  But this word was literally "Hold on, we're using actual definitions in this statement and not exaggerating".  This was the *one* word that shouldn't have been touched!

I guess I can use "truly" instead...  For now, at least.  This is still dumb and literally truly a waste of a good word.

Edit: Imma lighten things up with funny comic non-argument http://www.twogag.com/archives/3171

[wierd]

Literally, as in "Seriously, that is exactly what was written down." 
Metaphorically, as in "Why is a raven like a writing desk?"

The problem here is not metaphor, but hyperbole. A statement that is over the top, bombastic, incredulous. Hyperbole often has an aftertaste of rhetorical lies added in. "OMG, I can't believe he actually won that election. Somebody stop the earth, I want off."  The person may not actually want to leave the earth, they just dont want to live in the same world that allows things they consider to be bullshit to continue. They definately dont want somebody to actually stop the earth's rotation. It is a kind of metaphor, but not all metaphors are hyperbole.  Hyperbole can be a useful literary and rhetorical construct-- it can convey the deeply felt emotional (and therefore innately irrational) status of the person making the statement more effectively than an exhaustive, and highly verbose screed that tries to rationalize it.

If I were to give an etymology of the use of "Literally, she is a douche" type use of "literally", I would ascribe it to a mythological context-- That all actions are preordained by a higher authority. In regards to western culture specifically, where this kind of rhetoric is most common, I would ascribe it to the "book of life"  (and or, book of fate) type mythical construct, in which all of one's deeds are recorded. In this mythical tome, it may well be that "She is a douche" appears, making the statement true-- assuming of course, such a mythical object indeed exists.  Many strongly believed in this mythical work, which would have provided the necessary linguistic context.  "Literally, dude, that's gonna kill you" suddenly has more context behind it than simple misappropriation of metaphor.

That's just conjecture on my part though.

As for the "Loss of use of a word causes a new word to take its place" issue, YES, OMG YES.  Just tell that to the SJWs in the politically correct crowd that feel they can eliminate racial epithets by trying to eliminate their literary use-- On some misguided mission to eliminate racial hatreds by removing a means of expression.  That new modes of expression will appear to satisfy the need to make the expression held by people with such views, never seems to occur to them, even when pointed out.  It bothers me. It boils down to "Nobody is saying bad things now! Racial hatred is gone!"  No-- you just gagged all the people you disagree with. That does not make them now agree with you. Different kettle of fish entirely. They will just find a new medium to express themselves, which you will seek to shut down, rather than actually addressing the root of the problem-- WHY they hold the views in the first place. Personally, I would rather that we not end up speaking newspeak just because some people cant understand this, and keep trying to kill "offensive" words.

(Sorry for the derail there.)

[Frumple]

... folks really get off on words, don't they?

[Akura]

Dammit, I tried going to the home page of an old game creation tool I used to use, RPG Toolkit, but the library has it blocked as a malicious website. I was really hoping there was a new official version of it in the past 10 or so years(I was a member of their community).

[Frumple]

Dunno about official, but looking at the first website that popped up regarding it says the latest update was 3.2.1 back in february '14.

[Akura]

...still more updated than what I have. >_<

Oh well, I wasn't really going to do much with it anyway. I wonder why it was flagged as malicious. Probably trolls; that has been a problem before.

[wierd]

*Dons philosophical hat

I would rather people hurl an excess of words, than hurl other things, wouldn't you?

There's an important societal lesson there I think-- Listening and/or reading the words of people you have conflict with is better than having to force them into violence to make you understand their point of view no? 

In some things, having lots of words is better than having lots of actions, or at least I think so.
People will never stop having beliefs, and that means people will never stop having conflicting beliefs (between people).
Going "TL;DR" to somebody that is trying to materialize a deeply felt assertion of their emotional core (and thus doing so nonviolently) simply because you don't want to listen/read, removes the nonviolent option from the table. Socially, I think people should be more wary of employing "TL;DR".

*removes philosophical hat

[Frumple]

...still more updated than what I have. >_<

Oh well, I wasn't really going to do much with it anyway. I wonder why it was flagged as malicious. Probably trolls; that has been a problem before.

Ehn. If you want, I could probably upload it somewhere else. Thing's only like 30 megs...