Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by p8ryts, Nov 25, 2019.
That's some fine alliteration, son.
One other thing and I swear (hope?) I've made all my points. "Literally" is the only term that necessarily employs it's diametric opposite if used figuratively. So it is a special case and deserves to be treated as such.
What about the word"figuratively" in a literal sense?
No problem, we got a lot of special cases here.
Ok, gotcha! It’s really not a popular word in the world I live in. Then I joined twitter and saw it everywhere
That was a “WTF” moment moment for me
Thanks. I went to Harvard twice.
It’s amazing this guy hasn’t imploded like the other former Boston Globe/Herald reporters that were catapulted to better jobs due to the Pats success.
After pondering this I suppose it's possible to access dictionary entries on a smartphone.
Hell, I been there more than that. It's on the Red Line.
I have a selfie of me there with my kids. Never mind the campus cop.
Your point's longform "it bothers me!" There's nothing wrong with the usage. Something can annoy you without being incorrect.
Not at all. You can disagree, but every reason I've provided has a substantive basis beyond mere annoyance.
Since you jump-started this discussion, I'll expand a bit.
"She was literally staring daggers at me!"
"Staring daggers" is what is figurative here, not "literally". Furthermore, figurative language is already used to provide color and emphasis, so "literally" is redundant in that function as well.
More to the point, there are only two times when someone would say this (or anything like this):
1. They unwittingly misused "literally".
2. They are conspicuously making reference to the pointless and wrong usage, either to poke fun at it or to prove it can be done.
This in stark contrast to other figurative language where the alternate definition is both intentional and not there just to make reference to itself. Frankly, the divide is so wide that I'm not convinced literally-as-figurative would even be considered figurative usage. It's just an exclamation.... one that happens to mean the exact opposite of the word's primary definition. Not exactly efficient communication, no?
You are free to not care about any of this, of course. But to dismiss it as mere grousing is a significant mischaracterization.
The point is that saying it was "misused" implies that any bit of language has a fixed use or meaning. It doesn't. Words and languages are basically a ruleset that's meant to be broken. English lacks a singular 2nd person pronoun because somewhere along the line a bunch of speakers decided to ditch thou, after all.
Literally gets used a whole bunch, so clearly its usage has value to the substantial group of people speaking it. I'd say it works as both modifier (what you're expressing above) and signifier - the latter is a secondary layer of meaning in language that you're glossing over here, that takes place between the speaker and listener (or writer and reader). That it makes third parties - stuffy rule followers - angry is part of the point! We younger people communicate with a standard level of detached irony that's completely baffling to older generations; see the "ok boomer" thing in the other thread.
I've already made clear I understand this, but thanks.
More germane to this discussion is that words can be misapplied in their intended context.... which is clearly the case here. Or do you think that grammatical or linguistic errors are impossible?
Not in this case you don't. I respect the hell out of you, PT, but it's silly - and a little arrogant - to pretend there is some wit or irony behind the usage that is lost on anyone. It's just a convention borne out of ubiquitous error.
(Edit: the reason I am comfortable calling it an error is the number of times I've heard someone immediately correct themselves [well not literally] or concede error when their use of "literally" was pointed out to them. These far outnumber the frequency of someone saying they meant to use the term for reasons X, Y and Z.)
I suppose you could argue that the meaning being clear is a good reason to support the usage. After all, words are just there to convey ideas, right?
I'll confess, you kinda got me here. But given the fact that the redundant qualifier usage exactly opposes the traditional usage makes it a pretty stupid convention. IMO anyway. And in the eyes of all those people who used it and immediately realized their error afterward.
Linguistic conventions aren't really there for one person to take a stand on, though. I mean, there are plenty of usage errors that drive me nuts too (ch"o"mping at the bit, for example) but mostly because I recognize I'm a complete pedant. I just don't agree on "literally" - I do think it has value as figurative language, as a more heightened "younger" (in terms of its signifier) application of a word to convey a surface meaning like "really" or "actually." But it doesn't matter much; people are going to use it whether I find it useful or not. That's language, baby!
We agree on this. But I still want you to get off my lawn!
I literally just read this entire thread
want a cookie
...literally or figuratively?
sorry im sorry
Separate names with a comma.