this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
112 points (92.4% liked)

Linguistics Humor

201 readers
2 users here now

Do you like languages and linguistics ? Here is for having fun about it


Share this community: [[email protected]](/c/[email protected])


Serious Linguistics community: [email protected]


Rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

spoileralt 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 5 points 4 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

“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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

Exactly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

but that just works further to my point that context matters.

Have some reading glasses 👓

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I never denied that context matters, my point is that few words are that ambiguous without context.