[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 366 KB, 939x456, literallytheworstthingever.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236157 No.6236157 [Reply] [Original]

>This word means this, oh but also, you can use it to mean the exact opposite too.

Why do intelligent people permit stupidity and tolerate idiots?

>> No.6236163

this dog is much sadder than the fat dancing man :(

>> No.6236170

l2linguistics

>> No.6236182

>>6236157
>this hammer is used to hit nails but you could also use it to masturbate your mum with it

Problem?

>> No.6236186

>>6236157
it's become a part of our vernacular, there's literally nothing we can do

>> No.6236196

>>6236163
from now on we refer to dfw as fdm

>> No.6236198

>>6236196
but dfw isn't fdm...

>> No.6236204
File: 47 KB, 403x392, grrrr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236204

>>6236186

>literally nothing

>> No.6236208

>>6236182
how are those two usages exact opposites?

>> No.6236211

>>6236157
>yfw the definition uses the word 'literally'

>> No.6236216

why do autistic people get so confused and enraged at words that can mean different things in different contexts?

>> No.6236226

Have you ever heard of a word called "hyperbole"?

>> No.6236240
File: 339 KB, 680x680, 1425129640430.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236240

This is now a language molestation thread. Post the words and expressions idiots in your country use.
I'll start. frenchfag:

au final

>> No.6236242

>>6236226
Yes, but you clearly haven't, because this isn't an example of hyperbole. There's no exaggeration involved, people are using the word to mean "figuratively" which is the semantic opposite.

>> No.6236243

>>6236204
kek

>>6236226
NUH UH WE HAVE TO TAKE IT LITERALLY
HOW ELSE CAN WE MAKE OURSELVES FEEL SUPERIOR

>> No.6236249

>>6236240
>du coup
>tout bien considere
>quand on y pense

>> No.6236251
File: 1014 KB, 360x203, 1419073530262.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236251

>>6236204
HAHA, HE FELL FOR IT, THE ABSOLUTE CRAZY CUNT!!

>> No.6236263

>>6236240
on fleek.

>> No.6236275

I'm posting in a retard thread.

>> No.6236281

>>6236275
that's what your mom said
when I smooched her :3c

>> No.6236290

>>6236157
If you're uncomfortable with word meanings shifting and with words containing their opposites inside themselves then maybe you're not into literature and should watch some daytime TV and get a job in retail.

>> No.6236296
File: 98 KB, 504x768, Samuel_Beckett,_1977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6236296

OP is literally autistic

>> No.6236302

>>6236290
>allowing your/a language to degenerate

>> No.6236304

>>6236296
fuck i should read some Beckett

>> No.6236312

>>6236302
Why [de]generate? It's just change.

Perhaps you're concerned the language is moving from more complex to less complex forms, but you will have a very difficult job trying to prove that to yourself and you'll waste the valuable time you could spend observing and appreciating the play of the language as it cascades across the skin of the planet.

>> No.6236316

>>6236312
I'm fine with language changing, but in this case the cause of change is simply ignorance regarding the meaning of the word.

>> No.6236332

>>6236316
It looks like ignorance, but the misuse of the word was caused by its overuse and de-contextualisation.

For sure it's important to know where words come from, and the number of dumb kids that don't know the history of the word is disappointing, but those groups of idiots have always existed - you can't save them and they're arguably an important part of the semi-conscious migration of language.

Fortunately here on the half-educated internet we can use the word with an extra layer of irony and comment on it until we throw up. I'm not even convinced that's better than unironically using the word in its popular contemporary meaning.

>> No.6236340

why are autists so mad about this?

>> No.6236351

>>6236332
>overuse and de-contextualisation.

No. It's simply because it has been used without knowing its definition.

>> No.6236360

>>6236211
it's postmodernism, deal with it

>> No.6236368

>>6236351
... because babies learn language by reading the OED

>> No.6236376

>>6236340
It's an easy way to troll people who think highly of themselves yet do "misuse" it [/spoiler]you know... like you[/spoiler]

>> No.6236380

>>6236376
[spoiler\\] this thread turned into shit pretty fast [spoiler\\]

>> No.6236386

>>6236157

You should probably kill yourself if you have a problem with language evolving. Because in the next year, a bunch of words are probably going to acquire new meanings.

>> No.6236388

>>6236263
Can someone please explain to me what the fuck this means

>> No.6236408

>>6236386
You shouldn't confuse change as evolution. Quality of writing is not determined by abidance to popular usage and its unwritten rules, but of the explanatory power the writing has in conveying what it means succinctly and powerfully. The OP is not an example of this and never will be in any time or place. Why would you want your world to be defined by limp, short-hand and memetics when it could be tight and evoking? Sure, it's autistic to call out the words people use, but it's just apathetic and apologetic to not care about the literature isolated from the person's feelings.

>> No.6236414

>Lily, the caretaker's daughter, was literally run off her feet.

>> No.6236423

>>6236414

I've heard the argument that this is because Joyce's narration is a kind of first-person third person where it assumes the vernacular, or at least the thoughts, of the characters

>> No.6236428

>>6236157
>not being familiar with literary devices
>i.e. sarcasm, irony, hyperbole

top kek

>> No.6236432

>>6236408

But "literature" will never use words like literally to mean figuratively. You more or less said that in your own post. If it's merely popular usage, then no great writer will fall back on it.

So why is OP getting mad over what people say on a website whose own users describe themselves as neckbeards and autistic on a regular basis?

It's literally retarded.

>> No.6236434

>>6236408

>You shouldn't confuse change as evolution

You misunderstand evolution, maybe. Evolution isn't a constant dead-reckoning march of progress. It's an unconscious drunk-walk which approaches the sublime without ever pointing straight towards it.

Random change happens, some sticks and some doesn't. What doesn't stick dies away and you get the nice tree-structure that appears to preserve certain strands / branches over long periods of time. But at any single instant the state is fuzzy and difficult to define, and people whine about individual changes without understanding the glory of the unconscious mechanic that has brought us this far and will carry us further.

You can be secretly sad about things you like passing away, but you can't preserve them, and getting all militant about them does nothing other than make you out as an autist who can't stand change, especially when it's change in something they've revere.

>> No.6236435

>>6236216
kek

>> No.6236436

From now on, I shall use hypothetically to mean literally, and vice versa.

And it WILL catch on.

>> No.6236442

>>6236436
Bonus points if you bring back the "veekeh versah" pronunciation.

>> No.6236443

>>6236434
>being this pretentious

>> No.6236471

I can only imagine how autistic you guys would've gotten in the 80's, when 'bad' came to be slang for 'good'.

>> No.6236477

>>6236157

Awful used to mean the same as awesome, you retard.

>> No.6236487

>>6236312
>more complex to less complex forms
how is this less complex?

>> No.6236503

>>6236487
The person I quoted was worried about the language 'degenerating', which marks him out as someone who believes that the primary purpose of language is to be a carrier of information. If that were the case a 'degeneration' in language would mean a reduction in the bandwidth/density of the information contained in individual linguistic particles, i.e. a simplification.

>> No.6236512

What is a metaphor you dumb fuck

>> No.6236535

it's called da evolution of words :^)))

>> No.6236542

>>6236503
> which marks him out as someone who believes that the primary purpose of language is to be a carrier of information.

That's quite the assumption.

> Degenerate - to become much less good or admirable

>> No.6236560

>the meaning of words can't change
>new words are degenerate
>old definitions are better

holy fuck how can anyone be this stupid. the very reason you are speaking something called english, and not grunting and pointing at things, is BECAUSE language is always changing

a dictionary is like a photograph, not a user manual

>> No.6236561

>>6236157
>Why do intelligent people permit stupidity and tolerate idiots?

Because you guys sometimes make funny threads where you misuse words while complaining about purported misuse of words. Shit never gets old.

>>6236242
>people are using the word to mean "figuratively"

No, they're not.

>> No.6236564

>>6236560
>this is how things happen
>therefore it's good
stoics pls go

>> No.6236570

>>6236157
Well I'm chuffed.

>> No.6236572

>>6236560
>new words are degenerate
>old definitions are better

'Literally' isn't a new word.
The way it's used now is simply incorrect.

>> No.6236573

>>6236432
>But "literature" will never use words like literally to mean figuratively.

It already has.

>> No.6236579

>>6236572
>The way it's used now

You realise that 'now' encompasses the last couple of centuries, right? No? You didn't know that? God damn. You must not be worth listening to about, like, anything.

>> No.6236591

>>6236573
[citation needed]

>> No.6236593

>>6236564
>this is how things happen
>therefore i should become upset and call people idiots

it literally can't be any other way, otherwise we wouldn't have language. its a fundamental property of the thing.

>>6236572
i didn't say it was a new word, way to reading comprehension. "correct" and "incorrect" isn't determined by the dictionary, it's a function of communication. if one can understand what is being said, and be understood when saying, the usage is "correct."

new words are added to the dictionary every year. these words weren't "incorrect" before they had a definition. the dictionary definition is based on usage, and not vice versa

>> No.6236601

>>6236434
I agree to some extent, but this is not a strand of evolution that is severed from ourselves as a process we are to passively study, it's an operation built on conscious intention. Without subjective standpoint such as my own, there is no change. If this evolution is as natural as you say then the logic applies to my very own beliefs and so your reaction to my reaction is self-defeating. The more existential an argument, the weaker, generally.

>> No.6236613

>>6236591

>As is often the case, though, such "abuses" have a long and esteemed history in English. Tom Sawyer wasn't turning somersaults on piles of money when Twain described him as "literally rolling in wealth," nor was Jay Gatsby shining when Fitzgerald wrote that "he literally glowed," nor were Bach and Beethoven squeezed into a fedora when Joyce wrote in Ulysses that a Mozart piece was "the acme of first class music as such, literally knocking everything else into a cocked hat." Such examples are easily come by, even in the works of the authors we are often told to emulate.

>The earliest examples I know of are from the late 18th century, and though there are examples throughout the 19th century—often in prominent works; to my earlier examples could be added choice quotations from James Fenimore Cooper, Thackeray, Dickens, and Thoreau, among many others—no one seems to have objected to the usage until the early 20th century.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2005/11/the_word_we_love_to_hate.html

'Literally' as an intensifier is the kind of thing pretentious morons pretend to care about in the mistaken belief that doing so will make them seem intelligent and educated. This is actually really obvious when you think about it.

>> No.6236618

>>6236593
> if one can understand what is being said, and be understood when saying, the usage is "correct."

So if two girls agree 'literally' has the same meaning as 'figuratively', their use is now correct.

>> No.6236633

>>6236613

So Joyce, Twain and Fitzgerald all used it, three of the greatest novelists of modern times in the English language and you want to tell me there's a problem?

Sure thing, neckbeard. I think I will literally be using literally all the literal time from now on. Go fuck yourself. Literally.

>> No.6236635

>>6236633
kek this post

>> No.6236638

>>6236591
"But there was a change in Gatsby that was simply confounding. He literally glowed; without a word or a gesture of exultation a new well-being radiated from him and filled the little room."
-Fitzgerald, Gatsby

"And when the middle of the afternoon came, from being a poor poverty-stricken boy in the morning, Tom was literally rolling in wealth."
-Twain, Tom Sawyer

"All colors made me happy: even gray.
My eyes were such that literally they
Took photographs."
-Nabokov, Pale Fire

"...there is never a candle lighted in this house, until one's eyes are literally falling out of one's head with being stretched to read the paper."
-Dickens, David Copperfield

need any more?

>>6236618
yes, it's correct, because they understand one another. let's say an author coins a new word. in other words, he is literally the only person to say it. but he has an audience, and his readers use the word. the popularity of the word spreads. eventually, if enough people use a word a certain way, or use a new word, it gets entered into the dictionary. thats how it works.

>> No.6236649

>>6236638

How do you know that Gatsby didn't literally glow or that Tom didn't literally roll around in his wealth or Nabokov isn't talking about photographic eyes or that eyes weren't falling out of one's head literally?

It's all possible. You've been reading these classics like they aren't supernatural thrillers. Pale Fire is the story of a cyborg, you plebeian.

>> No.6236651

>>6236638
Just because it's entered into a dictionary doesn't mean there can't be discussion about the word (as is the case here)

>> No.6236661

>>6236633
>So Joyce, Twain and Fitzgerald all used it, three of the greatest novelists of modern times in the English language and you want to tell me there's a problem?

No, I have no problem with it, I'm not whoever you think I am. Calm yourself.

>>6236618
>So if two girls agree 'literally' has the same meaning as 'figuratively'

It doesn't have the same meaning. 'Figuratively' is not an intensifier in any context. 'Literally', in the relevant context, is an intensifier.

>> No.6236667

>>6236661
>It doesn't have the same meaning. 'Figuratively' is not an intensifier in any context. 'Literally', in the relevant context, is an intensifier.

Doesn't matter. It would still become the new 'correct' form according to >>6236593

>> No.6236672

>>6236163
The dogs ok. He was clearly forced to vomit, meaning he probably feels a great deal better. You'd be surprised how much can come out of them

>> No.6236677

>>6236667

That's separate to the point I'm making, which is that the chuckleheaded middlebrow dilettantes who clutch their pearls over 'literally' aren't even fucking correct about the thing they're so anxious to tell everyone they're annoyed by.

>> No.6236683

>>6236677
Why aren't they?
Because it's registered in the dictionary like so?
There can still be discussion about it.

>> No.6236687

>>6236208
>this hammer is used to hit nails in but you could also use it to pull nails out

>> No.6236691

>>6236157
This is just how rhetoric works, you dumb fuck

it's just how language is used

jeessus

>> No.6236697

>>6236651
i never said there can't be discussion about it. i am saying, and have been saying, that it is unreasonable to become upset, or to call people idiots for using a word in a different way

the only idiotic thing in this discussion is believing language is something that can or should be frozen in time and place forever. even the language we have now, all the words, their meanings, and our rules of grammar, are bastardizations, borrowing from other languages, twisting and often outright ejection of meanings. we're not speaking latin right now, nor old forms of german or norse. even still, those languages themselves were like ours: haphazard, bastardizations, mixing with other languages.

>> No.6236700

>>6236242

>"I'm literally going to cut your head off"

"Literally" is used to emphasize that I'm *not* being hyperbolic. It's the same as saying "seriously" or "I'm not even kidding."

Even though the sentence is in fact hyperbolic, it's not necessary to point out the hyperbole within the sentence (unless you're talking to an autistic). "Literally" does not mean "figuratively" here, even though the sentence is figurative. Who the fuck would say "I'm figuratively going to cut your head off!"

>> No.6236701

>>6236683
>Why aren't they?

Because, as I (literally!) just said, the relevant sense of 'literally' is as an intensifier, which 'figuratively' is not. The two words, therefore, are completely distinct in meaning.

Complaining about 'literally' as an intensifier is really* the mark of a buffoon. Expressing that complaint as "Literally means figuratively now" or similar, though, is the mark of an actual** retard.

* This is not a claim of veridical buffoonery.
** This is not a claim of veridical retardation.

>> No.6236709

>>6236157

Because oppressing people who are judged stupid for whatever reason is worse than dealing with stupidity.

>> No.6236710

>>6236683
because "literally" has been used the way we use it now for over 150 years

there's also nothing to discuss. you sound like a creationist or global warming denier who begs a school to "teach both sides of the debate"

this thread, for example, isn't a discussion. its prescriptivists being shut down for their preposterous and untenable attitudes and arguments

>> No.6236725

>>6236157
I currently believe we will reach a point where idiots have exerted so much influence that it is impossible to succinctly express intelligence and the human race will die out.

Think 'The Marching Morons' and how they made life hell for anyone intelligent.

>> No.6236752

>>6236471
lol

Around 2005 while working a a movie theater, the gm made some shit as a promo for an upcoming feature. She asked my opinion and as I was a high school dork desperately trying be cool, I said it was "sick". She looked like she was about to cry until I explained to her that it was a compliment.

>> No.6236888

>>6236163
the dog most likely ate a fuck ton of chocolate and is now being forced to vomit (I had to do the same to my dog once). So the vet is actually saving his life therefore it's a happy thing, anon.

>> No.6236903

>>6236157
Why do young people permit other young people to adopt the pose of a septuagenarian grump?

Are you literally channelling your grampa?

>> No.6237141

>>6236157
>Why do intelligent people permit stupidity and tolerate idiots?
Did you rebel against the mods?
Then you have no rights to judge someone on the matter.

>> No.6237151
File: 84 KB, 403x392, 12.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6237151

>>6236240
>tfw italian compatriots rape congiuntivo

>> No.6237200

>>6237151
Come ti capisco, non battono ciglio, come se sarebbe la cosa più naturale al mondo. Beata ignoranza.

>> No.6237208
File: 138 KB, 724x1118, 5803218.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6237208

>>6236240
>Au jour d'aujourd'hui

>> No.6237218

>>6236240
would of

>> No.6237262

>hurr durr if somebody says they literally died laughing it confuses me because they're alive

>> No.6237268

>>6236242
They aren't using it figuratively, they're using it in a figurative manner

>> No.6237272

Because nobody, not even "intelligent people" gets to police the way people use words. You don't have the right and nor does anyone else.

That, gentlemen, I believe is /thread.

>> No.6237274

>>6236332
>For sure it's important to know where words come from
Why?

>> No.6237278

>>6237272
your mom policed my dick 3 times yesterday

>> No.6237326

/lit/ - literally

>> No.6237359

>>6237272
If no one is allowed to police words and their meanings, then why are you telling people not to police words and their meanings?

>> No.6237362

>>6237359
>If no one is allowed to murder, then why are you telling people not to murder?

>> No.6237367

>>6237362
>If noone is allowed to murder why are you murdering me

>> No.6237374
File: 1.20 MB, 1265x7745, Screen Shot 2015-03-07 at 21.08.49.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6237374

>>6237272
>

>> No.6237388

>>6237359
You are stupid. He's doing nothing of the kind.

>> No.6237406
File: 78 KB, 832x584, intothetrash.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6237406

>>6237374
>standard language
>linguistic purism
>prescriptivism

>> No.6237468

>>6237367
>>6237359

Literally retarded. Literally in the literal sense too.

>> No.6237471

>>6236157
>implying this is the first time a word has two different, opposite meanings

>> No.6237545

Despite reading all of that, I know I will still lose my shit over "irregardless".

>> No.6237549

>>6237374
nobody cares about these cute little committees and departments. people use their own languages however the fuck they want

>> No.6237875

>>6236157
>people think the development of language should be frowned on
Y'all are just autistic that it doesn't fit with your preconceptions of how language works

>> No.6237921

Literally is a synonym for "really". Really can mean either "Intensely" or "actually."