• Belastend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    literally now also means figuratively.

    Over my dead body! Just because an authority says something unacceptable is acceptable doesn’t make it so. See also: the Israeli government committing genocide.

    Maybe this isnt the right place to interject here: but yes, it now also means figuratively. Not because an authority said so, but because a sizable portion of native english speakers use it to mean figuratively. Thats how language works.

      • Belastend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        The OED is, again, descriptive. They observe the change in meaning and update their description accordingly.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Correct. You’ve just described how the language you’re using has come to be. It evolves over time, and the OED is the most respected documenter of that change. We don’t use the same English that was standard a century ago. Wheat is colloquial now is the standard.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s a textbook appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because many people make the same mistake doesn’t mean it becomes correct.

      The most popular electric car brand is Tesla. That doesn’t mean that Teslas don’t have the build quality of a 1980s Yugo and the price tag of a brand new Jaguar.

      Don’t use other people being stupid as an excuse to be stupid, is what I’m saying.

      • Belastend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        No, that is just how linguistics work. Language is decided descriptively, not prescriptively

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Nope, both descriptivism and prescriptivism have merit, depending on the specific case.

          A lot of people using a word as having the opposite meaning out of pure ignorance and/or carelessness is one case where prescriptivism is warranted.

          I’ll die on this fucking hill 😄

          • Belastend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            And you will die on a linguistically untenable hill. Redefining words had happened throughout history and language hasnt died out and its not gotten worse.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              And you will die on a linguistically untenable hill

              Is this your way of warning me against going hiking in Wales? 😉

              language hasn’t died out

              Of course not. That’s literally impossible. Don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.

              and its not gotten worse.

              That’s of mixed veracity at best.

      • nieminen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is a bad comparison. Language absolutely works as described in the previous comment. While certain trends such as using “literally” to mean “figuratively”, are personally super annoying, that doesn’t change the fact it’s 100% correct when enough people do it.