DailyDirt: Can We At Least Agree On The Meanings Of Words?
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
There are all kinds of silly arguments online, but perhaps the most common are arguments over the meanings of words. Some folks like to think that words should have static definitions, and all other usage is incorrect usage. Others don't care about the exact meaning of words, and they're not careful with their word choices... or they just make up new words to fit whatever they're trying to say. Language is funny; it evolves and changes -- and sometimes people are just wrong in how they choose their words. Here are just a few examples of word meanings that hopefully don't set off some crazy semantic arguments.- Grammar nerds (or nazis) are fuming at a new definition of "literally" which actually makes the word into a synonym for "figuratively" -- so now people who previously used "literally" incorrectly can now point to the dictionary and say they're using the word correctly. Three different dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster, have added this informal definition as a way to use the word literally for emphasis or as hyperbole. [url]
- In the 1660s, the word terrific meant frightening or horrible, but by the late 1800s, it started to mean excellent or great. The English language actually has several examples of words that have become to mean the opposite of their original definitions. [url]
- Words aren't the only components of language that can evolve different meanings -- some punctuation marks have moved beyond their formerly limited roles. The word "slash" is now a new conjunction or conjunctive adverb. It used to be funny how punctuation could change the meaning of words.... [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: conjunction, dictionary, grammar, language, literally, punctuation, semantics, slash, synonym, terrific, words
Reader Comments
The First Word
“So? Such things are already common enough that we have a word for entire class: contranym. You can run fast, or you can be stuck fast. You determine what is meant by context.
The figurative use of literal (which is NOT new--it's almost as old as the word itself) is most often used in the context of hyperbole. There's the context needed.
Words naturally accrue other meanings as time passes. "Truly", "really", and "actually" for a brief time meant in a true, real, or actual manner. They still can mean that, in context. Or, in other context, like hyperbole:
(from Alcott's Little Women).
Anyway, partisans for literal literally's lost the fight before it ever began. It's been used that way for over 300 years now. No one objected to it for two centuries. If you wanted to stop it, you should have started trying in the late 17th century.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Trouble With �Literally� ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Trouble With �Literally� ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Trouble With �Literally� ...
Actually, is actually quite helpful, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Trouble With �Literally� ...
No it doesn't. Other than used sarcastically, which is true of any word, "really" always means really. Whereas the new usage of "literally" does not always mean literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Trouble With �Literally� ...
Really, about the only thing that makes me sad now is how I cannot say "The literal meaning of literally is literally useless", because "literally" now has a useful literal meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- they, in actuality, are not communicating (at all)?
OR
- they (simply) aren't communicating to their fullest potential?
Because "really" literally does the same thing as literally, actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvelous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.
� Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This reminds me of a quote off Bash.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This reminds me of a quote off Bash.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This reminds me of a quote off Bash.org
How about "A man chasing a cat with a broom in his underwear is ambience by any definition"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I once had someone tell me,...
To which, dumbfounded, I could only reply: "You literally don't know the meaning of the word 'literally'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Literally
Q: You know why kleptomaniacs don't understand puns?
A: Because they take everything, literally!
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Twain, Jane Austen, James Joyce, and any number of authors have used the word literally to mean figuratively:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2013/08/14/why-the-grammar-nazis-are-literally-wron g/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The grammar-nazis are actually wrong on this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, http://xkcd.com/1108/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is literally an xkcd for everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is literally an xkcd for everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Using the phrase "not even" to add emphasis to something. Ex. "I saw the whole accident! I'm not even lying!" It just sounds really stupid.
Adding the letters "ed" to the end of words to create the past tense, rather than using the proper form of the word. One article I read the other day said (sayed?) that Miley Cyrus "grinded" up against her singing partner at the VMAs. Grinded? Is that like drived? Or thinked? How about goed or doed? Seeed? Bleeded? Throwed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "grinded"
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=grinded&year_start=1797&year_end=2000&a mp;corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
Clicking on the examples, they look like typical well-edited text of the period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Although, I'm not sure Thickie feels any less violated for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But if we accept this as the new meaning of "literally", we are left without a word for the old meaning of "literally", and if we invent one, some people will just use THAT to mean "figuratively", for the same reasons they use "literally" wrong.
Some may ask, "But can't the word just have two meanings?" Not in this case. You are asking us to accept a meaning which is the opposite of the original meaning. If I say "He was glued to his seat", that's probably a metaphor. If I say "He was literally glued to his seat", that's SUPPOSED to mean that I'm not using a metaphor and actual glue is involved. But if we accept this new meaning, "literally" is STILL ambiguous, and I have to say something like "no, really, there was actual glue involved, this is not a metaphor." And that's just silly when there is a perfectly good word that is supposed to have that meaning.
And what's the gain of this new meaning of "literally"? What does it bring to the language? Easier use of already-overused cliches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
... No. Seriously. There are fresh brains on my walls and ceiling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Elsewise, your clarifying statement is equally void, since "really" has the EXACT SAME DUALITY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This has some merit, although the level of understanding is diminished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So? Such things are already common enough that we have a word for entire class: contranym. You can run fast, or you can be stuck fast. You determine what is meant by context.
The figurative use of literal (which is NOT new--it's almost as old as the word itself) is most often used in the context of hyperbole. There's the context needed.
Words naturally accrue other meanings as time passes. "Truly", "really", and "actually" for a brief time meant in a true, real, or actual manner. They still can mean that, in context. Or, in other context, like hyperbole:
(from Alcott's Little Women).
Anyway, partisans for literal literally's lost the fight before it ever began. It's been used that way for over 300 years now. No one objected to it for two centuries. If you wanted to stop it, you should have started trying in the late 17th century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The irony is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you mean "figuratively", use the correct word. It's not that difficult, as long as you know the language - and a large proportion of the people who get it wrong earn their living from language. If you are a journalist who does not know the difference between literal and figurative, you're in the wrong job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opposite of Figuratively
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opposite of Figuratively
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personally I find the change interesting and somewhat justified - since 'literally' means 'written down'. And we all know that just because something has been written (newspaper, internet) doesn't mean it is actually true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm literally confused. Will figuratively soon be informally defined as having a literal or exact meaning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dictionaries should not follow society's usage
* They're, there, and their will now mean "they are". Example as seen on Facebook: There going home to get there clothes.
* New word: "Would of", which means "would've" or "would have". See also: "could of" and "should of". Example: I should of worn a jacket.
* To, too, and two will now mean "also" or "2", depending how it's used in context. Example: We wanted two go on to rides, but we should of brought money.
Some people complain that spelling shouldn't matter as long as the point is coming across. This may be true (or it may not), but when did society become so lazy that we can't take 2 seconds to know the difference between "there" and "their"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dictionaries should not follow society's usage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]