Literally was literally used as a figurative intensifier from basically the first moment it stopped meaning “of or pertaining to letters”.
English is full of contronyms. We even have a special word for them.
No one complains about “dust” having two contradicting meanings (apply or remove a powder), or “original” meaning “traditional” or “novel”.
What should the dictionary do when the people who use the language start using it in a way the dictionary says is wrong? Does the dictionary just ignore the language and insist that dusting only means to apply powder, and original only means new?
Communication is better facilitated by describing how language is used and trusting the listener and speaker to use context to convey meaning unambiguously.
I don’t need the dictionary to tell me I’m not being asked to put powdered sugar on the mantle, or that someone isn’t sharing their grandmother’s newly created, bespoke recipe they invented for their family.
Nah, it’s the wrong tool for that. Eventually both goals (to register and dictate usage) enter in conflict, so you end doing a sloppy job at one or both.
Plus a lot of prescriptions are that sort of silly “muh tradishun” thing; it’s only there to reinforce oppression - because rich people, unlike poor people, have the luxury to spend their time learning older varieties of their language, instead of working to their bones. And the exceptions (e.g. prescribing against slurs) are easy to handle through guides.
So why do people only get up in arms over literally? Because it’s the one they lived through? Here’s a bunch of words I’m sure you’re mostly, if not entirely fine with the dictionary listing their “new”, opposite meaning, and probably use them the new way too. That’s just off hand. There will be more if you google it.
You can’t force the entire world to strictly follow a book on how words should be used. People are going to talk how they like. You can document how people are using words. That’s what makes sense to do.
And how would you enforce that? Are you going to personally walk around the world hitting every person you disagree with in the face with a dictionary? And you think that will work?
Eh, kinda how the dictionary needs to work. It’s meant to be used to understand the language, so the dictionary can’t hold strong opinions and argue against how it’s used and remain useful.
I.E. Let’s say English is my second language, and I read something like “OMG I would literally kill myself.” And I go look up “literally” I’m a dictionary. If the very common antonym usage of it isn’t listed as a second definition, I’ll totally misunderstand.
So as much as we may not love that a word is flipping to mean its opposite, it is what it is and it’s not the role of the dictionary to take up that fight.
Oh, I mean the “fight” the person I’m replying to is suggesting, that dictionaries should be prescriptive (state how English should be, in this case arguing that “literal” shouldn’t be a valid word to use when you’re not being literal in the traditional sense), versus being descriptive (what dictionaries currently are, describing the language as it’s used without any assertions about how it “should” be).
Dictionaries have been adamantly descriptive since their inception, so they’re not at all doing what glitchDx is suggesting (thus literal having a secondary definition as an intensifier), and I’m arguing for the status quo.
Language is largely not prescriptive, no matter how much people want it to be. Prescriptivism is like holding your hand out to stop a river, it completely misunderstands how language flows over time.
A language simply “is”. If you’re trying to tell people what it is, you’re being descriptive; if you tell them how it should be, you’re being prescriptive. Both things have their place, even if linguists (when studying a language) focus on one to the detriment of other.
The problem is that short-sighted prescriptions are so bloody common that they take the spotlight from more reasonable things like “don’t use slurs, you’re demeaning people” or “write in a way suitable for your target audience”, etc.
Yes, this. Nobody came along and decreed the dictionary was descriptive - which would itself be a prescriptivist view of the world - it just is.
Linguistics rejected prescriptivism because it is a failed model of reality. I think the reason so many people cling to a prescriptive model is because in school we were taught obedience above all else, which is a terrible way of educating people, but maybe it helps to maintain a subservient class of workers.
Depends on what you mean by that. I’m not a linguist, but I’ve heard a lot of them speak, so I hope someone more qualified will correct me where I am wrong.
At an early age language needs to be taught in it’s present localized state to give a base structure for learning. With that language learning we need to teach structure of language locally and also more generally. Later in their learning, if we taught everyone in society the reality that linguists already know, that language changes and evolves over time and place, and teach language basics like how language itself works, we see better outcomes. The worst outcomes we see in language learning is when we teach only rote memorization of sounds, spelling, and rigid grammar. We can still teach that stuff, but it needs to be taught along side general language structures, language theory, and an understanding of practical realities to see better outcomes.
Whatever we do, language will always change rapidly over time. It’s better to teach in a way that prepares people for the fluidity of language, than to teach people only the rigid structures that will inevitably change.
I recently had a conversation with someone 1/3 my age. Allegedly, we both spoke english. Neither of us understood a damn thing the other said. I know this is an extreme example, and not representative of most contexts, but I think it’s worth looking at as an extreme example of how lack of language prescription can go horribly wrong.
But I bet you could understand someone that used most if not all of those words right? Because you learnt them, even after adulthood? You can learn and understand these new words too.
Also I find it incredibly hard to believe they couldn’t understand you. Even if the young generation uses a ton of slang with each other, they interact with teachers, parents, grandparents, media such as TV and movies etc I could go on. Unless you were intentionally using very old or foreign slang heavily I find it near unthinkable they actually couldn’t understand you.
Edit: I just noticed you’re the same person I replied to in another comment. I wanna be clear I wasn’t seeking you out or something, I barely look at user names, it was coincidence.
On one hand, inappropriate use of language like “literally” bugs me too. On the other hand, difficulty understanding other English speakers is an attitude thing.
If you don’t know what a word or a new use of a word means… you should find out.
Trying to assert that language should stay the way it was when you learned it is frankly lazy.
‘Cap’ means ‘lie’. If someone says “No cap?”, they’re asking “For real?” or “Are you serious?”. If someone says “You’re capping”, they’re saying you are not telling the truth.
I’d argue that dictionaries should be prescriptive, with systems in place for modification as language changes and semantics shift.
Case in point: the word “literally” now being its own antonym.
Literally was literally used as a figurative intensifier from basically the first moment it stopped meaning “of or pertaining to letters”.
English is full of contronyms. We even have a special word for them.
No one complains about “dust” having two contradicting meanings (apply or remove a powder), or “original” meaning “traditional” or “novel”.
What should the dictionary do when the people who use the language start using it in a way the dictionary says is wrong? Does the dictionary just ignore the language and insist that dusting only means to apply powder, and original only means new?
Communication is better facilitated by describing how language is used and trusting the listener and speaker to use context to convey meaning unambiguously.
I don’t need the dictionary to tell me I’m not being asked to put powdered sugar on the mantle, or that someone isn’t sharing their grandmother’s newly created, bespoke recipe they invented for their family.
Nah, it’s the wrong tool for that. Eventually both goals (to register and dictate usage) enter in conflict, so you end doing a sloppy job at one or both.
Plus a lot of prescriptions are that sort of silly “muh tradishun” thing; it’s only there to reinforce oppression - because rich people, unlike poor people, have the luxury to spend their time learning older varieties of their language, instead of working to their bones. And the exceptions (e.g. prescribing against slurs) are easy to handle through guides.
So why do people only get up in arms over literally? Because it’s the one they lived through? Here’s a bunch of words I’m sure you’re mostly, if not entirely fine with the dictionary listing their “new”, opposite meaning, and probably use them the new way too. That’s just off hand. There will be more if you google it.
You can’t force the entire world to strictly follow a book on how words should be used. People are going to talk how they like. You can document how people are using words. That’s what makes sense to do.
Awful
Original: Full of awe or inspiring reverence.
Now: Very bad or unpleasant.
Terrific
Original: Causing terror or fear.
Now: Excellent or great.
Egregious
Original: Remarkably good or distinguished.
Now: Shockingly bad.
Disinterested
Original: Unbiased, impartial.
Now: Uninterested, not caring.
Nonplussed
Original: Bewildered, perplexed.
Now: Unfazed or unimpressed.
Good point. I am slightly salty about flammable and inflammable though.
That one can be a dangerous misunderstanding.
And how would you enforce that? Are you going to personally walk around the world hitting every person you disagree with in the face with a dictionary? And you think that will work?
Eh, kinda how the dictionary needs to work. It’s meant to be used to understand the language, so the dictionary can’t hold strong opinions and argue against how it’s used and remain useful.
I.E. Let’s say English is my second language, and I read something like “OMG I would literally kill myself.” And I go look up “literally” I’m a dictionary. If the very common antonym usage of it isn’t listed as a second definition, I’ll totally misunderstand.
So as much as we may not love that a word is flipping to mean its opposite, it is what it is and it’s not the role of the dictionary to take up that fight.
Take up what fight? I just checked two dictionaries and both note that literally can be used as a simple intensifier
Oh, I mean the “fight” the person I’m replying to is suggesting, that dictionaries should be prescriptive (state how English should be, in this case arguing that “literal” shouldn’t be a valid word to use when you’re not being literal in the traditional sense), versus being descriptive (what dictionaries currently are, describing the language as it’s used without any assertions about how it “should” be).
Dictionaries have been adamantly descriptive since their inception, so they’re not at all doing what glitchDx is suggesting (thus literal having a secondary definition as an intensifier), and I’m arguing for the status quo.
Language is largely not prescriptive, no matter how much people want it to be. Prescriptivism is like holding your hand out to stop a river, it completely misunderstands how language flows over time.
A language simply “is”. If you’re trying to tell people what it is, you’re being descriptive; if you tell them how it should be, you’re being prescriptive. Both things have their place, even if linguists (when studying a language) focus on one to the detriment of other.
The problem is that short-sighted prescriptions are so bloody common that they take the spotlight from more reasonable things like “don’t use slurs, you’re demeaning people” or “write in a way suitable for your target audience”, etc.
Yes, this. Nobody came along and decreed the dictionary was descriptive - which would itself be a prescriptivist view of the world - it just is.
Linguistics rejected prescriptivism because it is a failed model of reality. I think the reason so many people cling to a prescriptive model is because in school we were taught obedience above all else, which is a terrible way of educating people, but maybe it helps to maintain a subservient class of workers.
Then what’s the point of teaching language to children in school?
Depends on what you mean by that. I’m not a linguist, but I’ve heard a lot of them speak, so I hope someone more qualified will correct me where I am wrong.
At an early age language needs to be taught in it’s present localized state to give a base structure for learning. With that language learning we need to teach structure of language locally and also more generally. Later in their learning, if we taught everyone in society the reality that linguists already know, that language changes and evolves over time and place, and teach language basics like how language itself works, we see better outcomes. The worst outcomes we see in language learning is when we teach only rote memorization of sounds, spelling, and rigid grammar. We can still teach that stuff, but it needs to be taught along side general language structures, language theory, and an understanding of practical realities to see better outcomes.
Whatever we do, language will always change rapidly over time. It’s better to teach in a way that prepares people for the fluidity of language, than to teach people only the rigid structures that will inevitably change.
I recently had a conversation with someone 1/3 my age. Allegedly, we both spoke english. Neither of us understood a damn thing the other said. I know this is an extreme example, and not representative of most contexts, but I think it’s worth looking at as an extreme example of how lack of language prescription can go horribly wrong.
Here’s a bunch of words that either didn’t exist at all, or didn’t exist in their current form/meaning when you were growing up:
smartphone, app, emoji, meme, livestream, crowdfunding, cryptocurrency, blockchain, NFT, ransomware, selfie, vlog, podcast, cloud computing, Al, algorithmic bias, social distancing, contact tracing, microaggression, cancel culture, virtue signalling, gamification, enshitification, deepfake, influencer, cybersecurity, carbon footprint, microplastic, drone, smart home, loT, cryptocurrency, biohacking, wearable, crowdsourcing, clickbait.
But I bet you could understand someone that used most if not all of those words right? Because you learnt them, even after adulthood? You can learn and understand these new words too.
Also I find it incredibly hard to believe they couldn’t understand you. Even if the young generation uses a ton of slang with each other, they interact with teachers, parents, grandparents, media such as TV and movies etc I could go on. Unless you were intentionally using very old or foreign slang heavily I find it near unthinkable they actually couldn’t understand you.
Edit: I just noticed you’re the same person I replied to in another comment. I wanna be clear I wasn’t seeking you out or something, I barely look at user names, it was coincidence.
No cap?
no one has successfully explained to me what that means.
On one hand, inappropriate use of language like “literally” bugs me too. On the other hand, difficulty understanding other English speakers is an attitude thing.
If you don’t know what a word or a new use of a word means… you should find out.
Trying to assert that language should stay the way it was when you learned it is frankly lazy.
‘Cap’ means ‘lie’. If someone says “No cap?”, they’re asking “For real?” or “Are you serious?”. If someone says “You’re capping”, they’re saying you are not telling the truth.
The word ‘thing’ refers to a council of elders and NAUGHT ELSE