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.

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • Shalakushka@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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”?

      • cazssiew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        The premise of your argument is ‘why aren’t people more rational?’. That’s a silly premise.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      “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.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I admit that if someone sends a text that reads “I’m literally suffocating” without any context

          Exactly.