Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by p8ryts, Nov 25, 2019.
I must be on the wrong part of Twitter as I don't recall seeing that word
Could be alliteration with the word 'litter', as in 'littering the web'; 'littering your mind'
More fun examples:
"A good cook could cook as much cookies as a good cook who could cook cookies."
"I saw a saw that could out saw any other saw I ever saw."
Say either of these ten times fast, and you probably still will not be able to see who wins Sunday night because the Pats' and Texans' uniforms are virtually identical.
OK I forgot what we were talking about.
Oh yeah! Mike, right.
"Yeah, I remember that. You need to set the edge faster next time."
While we are at it...
I normally visit ESPNBoston.com/patriots via a link....
And for the last 3 weeks the article at the top has been, "Tom Brady praises exceptional Hamilton ahead of sixth title"....WTF?
I challenge you to go back and re-read your post and my response
You'll see that "WTF" refers to your claim that half the posts on twitter are using the word "literally", while you were also claiming that it's not a popular word.
Six titles is pretty impressive. Not sure why you have such a big issue with it.
I have a friend named Lee. He always litters. I call him Litter-Lee.
The fact that "figurative" and "literal" are diametric opposites might be the reason.
How many other examples of these types of contradictory terms being interchangeable are there? Slang terms like "bad" or "nasty" are close, bit not quite there because they are specific compliments and not diametric opposites. They're also used intentionally, whereas literally-as-figurative seems to be borne out of obliviousness.
So, yes, this particular word being used figuratively is ridiculous, and justifiably irksome.
So literally is the only word that can't be used figuratively?
It's not a good idea to speak figuratively while using a word that means you aren't speaking figuratively.
Here's my question for you, what exactly are you being figurative about? It's not like "literal" is an adjective that is stretched to hyperbole to make a colorful point, or a verb that helps personify something. Nor is it sarcasm or wit in using a word out of place.
So what is figurative rather than simple error?
LOL, it's annoying to have scroll down past that story every time I go to ESPNBoston.com/patriots....
I seem to remember during Deflategate, Reiss took to his personal blog to say that he "had no control over what ESPN put on that page" when Mort's B.S. info was all over the news...
Figurative language just means use of words or phrases that depart from conventional meaning to convey something more complicated. Despite the elementary school laundry list of types of figurative language, there's no strict definition of how figurative language has to be structured or operate in order to work. (Indeed, such a requirement would be contra the whole point of figurative language.)
The word "literally" in a figurative sense usually heightens whatever it modifies - in an ironic way, to some degree. Given that a lot of people use it, one imagines it has linguistic value.
Not sure if I believe all this. How many degrees do you have? Have you ever published in a top ten literary journal as rated by the New Yorker?
I met Joyce Carol Oates once, handed her my short story, and - this is totally true - she personally told me, "Did you fart or was that someone else?"
Now that’s a story worth bragging about!
She’s been known to recognize genius immediately.
I never said there was, just that this particular use of the word is pretty stupid, given that it unintentionally employs the exact opposite definition. You also give people too much credit in assuming ironic usage.
As an example, when someone uses "nasty/filthy" as a compliment, they do so knowing full well that the word is usually less positive. I challenge you to find a single example of someone knowingly using "literal" as "figurative" who wasn't specifically referencing the backwards usage.
There isn't any figurative intent here; it's a grammatical error and nothing more.
Sure, it adds emphasis. It does so erroneously, but that's the reason behind the usage.
I fully understand that language is fluid and usages lead definitions as much as the reverse. At the same time, there is such a thing as a pervasive error. Are you fine with changing the definition of "of" to accommodate a "could of (have)" usage, for example?
Literally not a grammatical error.
Fwiw, I cleaned up the language above.
Is this supposed to be a response to my challenge? If so, you aren't rebutting my point, you are making it.
Separate names with a comma.