spoiler
alt text: A two panel comic. In the first panel there are two buttons labeled “I don’t believe in prescriptivism” and “‘Literally’ cannot mean ‘figuratively’”. A finger hovers between the buttons. In the second panel, the finger’s owner is sweating and wiping his brow, unable to decide.
Literally 1984
Literally can mean figuratively if you hate being clear, but it’s a much easier world to live in if words don’t mean two precisely fucking opposite things.
Yeah, actual usefulness is where I draw the line for descriptivism, I guess.
No one ever seems to have a problem with really (as in real) or very (from verily, ie true) being used in figurative senses, however.
I’m not saying English is perfectly consistent or that its never happened before, I’m saying why introduce ambiguity that gains nothing? Do we truly not have enough very/really analogs?
Plenty of words mean two precisely opposite things. Cleave, clip, dust, sanction, argue, drop, and a bunch of other examples that I’m shamelessly copying from a website
Language doesn’t work properly without context anyway. Saying “I literally died” has one obvious meaning when I’m talking about a meme someone posted on discord, and a different obvious meaning when I’m talking to the news about the time my heart stopped beating.
You aren’t interacting with the premise of my argument. I’m not saying this hasn’t happened before. I’m saying is it useful to add another one that has no actual use beyond “I cannot think of an adverb”?
The premise of your argument is ‘why aren’t people more rational?’. That’s a silly premise.
“I literally died” has one obvious meaning when I’m talking about a meme someone posted on discord, and a different obvious meaning when I’m talking to the news about the time my heart stopped beating.
But, “I literally died” can never be misinterpreted because ghosts aren’t real. “Literally” has no obvious meaning if someone says “I’m literally suffocating”. Does someone need to be helped with a serious medical condition, or are they using a metaphor to describe their feelings?
What makes it annoying is that the word that got co-opted was a word that existed to make it clear that something wasn’t an exaggeration or a metaphor. Yes, language requires context, but it’s annoying when a word can mean two very different things, and you have to ask for context in order to interpret the word.
You know how I said language doesn’t work properly without context? You don’t have to ask for context when someone tells you something. I struggle to think of a situation where it isn’t obvious in the moment whether someone means “literally” literally or figuratively. For example, “I’m literally suffocating.” Did you actually think about the reality of a situation where someone tells you this? You can just look at a person and know whether they’re struggling to breathe.
I admit that if someone sends a text that reads “I’m literally suffocating” without any context, then that’s not very useful, but that just works further to my point that context matters.
I admit that if someone sends a text that reads “I’m literally suffocating” without any context
Exactly.
but that just works further to my point that context matters.
Have some reading glasses 👓
This exactly. You can have a different meaning for a word if there’s a good reason for it. I have never heard a justification for this other than “Language changes, get over it lol”
Take the utilitarian position: the word “literally” is more useful if it is distinct from the word “figuratively”, but in most other cases descriptivist definitions are more useful.
Counterpoint: raw utility is overrated and goofy vibes are much more enjoyable.
This is why English is such a linguistically fucked language now lol
How is English any more or less linguistically fucked than any other natural language?
I just get annoyed when people use it in ambiguous context and it creates confusion.
I take the pessimist position, which is similar to yours, but I still hate people who don’t do what I want.
“Literally” has been used to mean “figuratively” since at least the 18 th century. Descriptivists (and actual linguists) have no problem with this. It’s a hang up of people who don’t actually study language but just want to tell other people what to do to make themselves feel superior. It was used in the figurative sense by Charles Dickens, Charlotte Bronte, James Joyce, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, among many others.
I think that should always have been a unique usage case, rather than a definition, though.
James Joyce is a bad example. My man will use any word phthalatically, praxically and with attendancy to drum the nepenthe of the scouring sense held within the addled consciousness that inexorably reaches for the Cratylus — περὶ ὀνομάτων ὀρθότητος — Hades grins, his priapus rising, and farts laconically; toilets toilets all is toilets and shite to shine in the blithering morn
ChatGPT got nothing on me lad Jamie!
First, Joyce’s work varies across all of his writing, and second, you can’t pick the one author out of a list and use that to dismiss the argument. It’s basically the same as dismissing the singular “they.” It has a historical basis, and the entire meme is about descriptivism, which is based in how language is used rather than prescribing how it should be used.
yeah but I’m saying Joyce just does what he wants and im just kidding around
like take Ulysses chapter 9 (Scylla and Charybdis), lns 697–707
He left her his
Secondbest
Bed.
Punkt.
Leftherhis
Secondbest
Leftherhis
Bestabed
Secabest
Leftabed
Woa!My joke was “was this the guy you want to use as a good example of descriptivism?!”
“Literally” doesn’t mean “figuratively”. It’s just an intensifier.
