Mistakes and Misunderstandings: Internet denizen butchering of phrases

[Fiery Diamond]

Hey all.

So I just finished typing up a little rant, and decided that maybe I should start a thread for people to contribute their own examples which they have come across. What am I talking about? Well...


It was bugging me, too. I was going to point it out if no one else did.

Rant incoming!

English has its share of strange phrases, many of which don't necessarily make sense at first glance; but seriously, most of them actually make semantic sense at the least. Too many people on forums [and other places] type what they think a phrase they've heard sounds like without ever bothering to see if it makes any sense at all, which results in some rather bizarre permutations of common phrases. "Intensive purposes," anyone? [Seriously: Intents and purposes.] Or how about things that I can only assume people think are some kind of slang or verbal tic instead of actually thinking about what things are being said? [There is no "should of," "could of," "would of." That makes no semantic or grammatical sense at all. It isn't slang. It's a freaking contraction: "should've," "could've," "would've."] ... /rant

That's what I'm talking about. I see things like this all the time. It's not like I don't understand how it happens; I'm guilty of it myself. You grow up hearing a phrase (or are introduced to a phrase when you're just learning the language) and you internalize what you THINK you heard, whether or not that's actually what was said. And sometimes, if the person/people you heard it from did the same thing, they might actually have said the wrong thing. So you use what you think you know and never bother to question it, because let's face it: English is a bizarro language sometimes. It's my contention, though, that you SHOULD bother to question it, because much of the time the correct phrase does make at least some sense.

Also, note that while many of these types of things are more apparent when someone is typing on the internet, quite a few are things you actually hear people say incorrectly, sometimes with great frequency (depending on who you live near).

So, feel free to share ones you have seen (or fallen for yourself!) before. Here's my short list (I've seen more, but I need to get to bed and don't feel like working my brain too hard to remember) to start us off.

Presented in the format of *Mistaken form//Actual form

*Intensive purposes//Intents and purposes
*Lone behold//Lo and behold (this was the one in the thread that prompted my mini rant)
*Should of//Should've
*Could of//Could've
*Would of//Would've
*Mute point//Moot point
*Nip [the problem] in the butt//Nip [the problem] in the bud
*Buttload//Boatload
*Hone in on//Home in on
*Suppose to//Supposed to (this one results from the fact that in normal speech, we glide the words together)


And one last one that might be a little controversial because there are so freaking many people who say the wrong thing... (though to be fair, the wrong version actually makes sense, and the correct version is a little unusual since that word is not usually used like that)

*If you think [X], then you've got another thing coming//If you think [X], then you've got another think coming

[SiuiS]

"butt load" actually makes sense and is more correct for colloquial use; think smuggling something into prison.

Another think coming also makes less sense than the 'incorrect' version, unless you also believe that people should say "and another think" when continuing a rant along? Telling someone they have another thing coming is the same phrase, using a conditional format. Instead of saying "and another thing! You ..." They say they will bring up another thing, if (and only if) the person being spoken to doesn't get the hint.




But yes. These drive me up a wall. My favorite? I had someone ask why I said "text message" and "Texting" when the word was clearly 'tex'. >_<
Oh, axe//ask is actually not incorrect, just apparently grammatically weird? There was a point where both were in common use, and some groups of people stuck to axing questions, and passed that down their cultural lines. So while it sounds like bad language, it was good enough for Chaucer. That was humbling.

[Oneris]

Honestly, if people would just take the time to see literal definition of the individual words instead of taking the meaning of those phrases for granted, this would be a lot less of a problem. Also, to add to your list of examples: "I could(sic) care less".

[Skeppio]

"I could care less" in the context of saying you have no interest in something. It's "I couldn't care less", as in you can't possibly have less interest in the topic. How can anyone screw that up? :smallfurious:

[Asta Kask]

"I could care less" in the context of saying you have no interest in something. It's "I couldn't care less", as in you can't possibly have less interest in the topic. How can anyone screw that up? :smallfurious:

Because it's said ironically?

Stephen Pinker's take (http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html)

Although they butchered the example typographically. It's still a good article, though.

[factotum]

"butt load" actually makes sense and is more correct for colloquial use; think smuggling something into prison.

Except "boat load" is generally acknowledged to mean a very large quantity of something, and I don't see that being the case with a "butt load" in the context you've just brought up... :smallamused:

Skeppio, "I could care less" is an Americanism--it's what they say in those circumstances, not some mistake people on the Internet make. Yes, it makes no sense whatsoever, but it's not quite the same thing as Fiery Diamond is talking about.

(And obligatory David Mitchell link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw)

[Oneris]

Well, if taken in the context of "I could care less (but I choose not to because I'm feeling merciful today and will take pity on your pathetic little idea)" or "I could care less (but I won't because I think you deserve better)", it makes a lot more sense.

Also, a Butt is actually a unit of measurement, approximating 140 gallons of wine, or half a tun. I doubt most people using the word 'buttload' are actually intending it to mean 140 gallons though. :smalltongue:

[SiuiS]

Except "boat load" is generally acknowledged to mean a very large quantity of something, and I don't see that being the case with a "butt load" in the context you've just brought up... :smallamused:

Skeppio, "I could care less" is an Americanism--it's what they say in those circumstances, not some mistake people on the Internet make. Yes, it makes no sense whatsoever, but it's not quite the same thing as Fiery Diamond is talking about.

(And obligatory David Mitchell link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw)

Man, you see a nine inch knife, a water balloon of drugs and a speed loader for a revolver come out of the same guy in teh same carry, and then you say whether or not that's a large quantity.

[Pheehelm]

There's a longer list of these (http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html) out there than you probably ever wanted to see. (Me, though, I keep that page bookmarked just to be safe.)

[Asta Kask]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IvWoQplqXQ

I think this says it all. :smallbiggrin:

[SarahV]

Also, a Butt is actually a unit of measurement, approximating 140 gallons of wine, or half a tun. I doubt most people using the word 'buttload' are actually intending it to mean 140 gallons though. :smalltongue:
I didn't before, but from now on, when I use the word buttload, that is exactly what I mean. :smallamused:

I usually assume that people who use phrases like "nip it in the butt" don't read enough books. If you read a lot you end up learning words/phrases that you don't know how to pronounce (like when I was a little kid and thought epitome rhymed with home and rendezvous rhymed with moose). When you don't read enough professionally-edited prose, you end up learning words/phrases that you don't know how to spell, because you've only ever heard them, or seen them spelled wrong by similarly-uneducated folks online.

I do proofreading for a national magazine and I know from personal experience that the more time I spend reading stuff online, the more mistakes I tend to make in proofreading, because after enough repetitions, the wrong stuff starts looking right.

[Asta Kask]

Who gets to decide if something is wrong? Isn't that like me going chastising my cat for meowing the wrong way? Language is a natural phenomenon, after all.

Maybe a more fruitful use of our time would be to teach people to rewrite three times, rather than telling them that "To boldly go..." is WRONG! Does it impede understanding? How many people have seriously misunderstood "I can't get no satisfaction..." as indicating that the singer was getting massive amount of satisfaction.

[Scorpina]

How many people have seriously misunderstood "I can't get no satisfaction..." as indicating that the singer was getting massive amount of satisfaction.

Well, given that the singer in question was Mick Jagger, I'd say that interpretation makes a lot of sense.:smallbiggrin:

Also, I've always found "we don't need no education" to be a fun example of that. Since, y'know, clearly they do need education on double negatives.

[Fiery Diamond]

"butt load" actually makes sense and is more correct for colloquial use; think smuggling something into prison.

Another think coming also makes less sense than the 'incorrect' version, unless you also believe that people should say "and another think" when continuing a rant along? Telling someone they have another thing coming is the same phrase, using a conditional format. Instead of saying "and another thing! You ..." They say they will bring up another thing, if (and only if) the person being spoken to doesn't get the hint.




But yes. These drive me up a wall. My favorite? I had someone ask why I said "text message" and "Texting" when the word was clearly 'tex'. >_<
Oh, axe//ask is actually not incorrect, just apparently grammatically weird? There was a point where both were in common use, and some groups of people stuck to axing questions, and passed that down their cultural lines. So while it sounds like bad language, it was good enough for Chaucer. That was humbling.

Someone else already addressed the buttload//boatload issue below, but I wanted to respond about the other one.

It's just that single phrase that's like that, not all cases of "another thing." Here's what the phrase means:

If you think [X]*, then you've got another think coming.**
*If you think [X]
*which you clearly do, or I wouldn't be saying this
*which is also NOT the way things are going to be
**then circumstances/my actions/events/etc. are going to force you to rethink ("another think") and change what you think because you're wrong

Link (http://grammarist.com/usage/another-think-coming/)

[Asta Kask]

Also, I've always found "we don't need no education" to be a fun example of that. Since, y'know, clearly they do need education on double negatives.

But double negatives is a feature of many languages, like French. (http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/negation_double.htm) Why can't it be a feature of English (or at least some dialects of it)? Or are you going to invade France and tell them to stop?

English isn't algebra.

More languages with double negatives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative)

I would say that if lots of people are using double negatives, and are being understood, than that is acceptable [language].

[Gnoman]

Someone else already addressed the buttload//boatload issue below, but I wanted to respond about the other one.

It's just that single phrase that's like that, not all cases of "another thing." Here's what the phrase means:

If you think [X]*, then you've got another think coming.**
*If you think [X]
*which you clearly do, or I wouldn't be saying this
*which is also NOT the way things are going to be
**then circumstances/my actions/events/etc. are going to force you to rethink ("another think") and change what you think because you're wrong

Link (http://grammarist.com/usage/another-think-coming/)

Another way of putting it is "Your think is defective. I will replace your think for you."

[Scorpina]

But double negatives is a feature of many languages, like French. (http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/negation_double.htm) Why can't it be a feature of English (or at least some dialects of it)? Or are you going to invade France and tell them to stop?

English isn't algebra.

Nothing is more English than invading France.

Also, the French actually have a governing body for the French language which determines official correct usage, so I think they'd be on board with sticking with the rules your language already has rather than playing fast and loose with them.

[Asta Kask]

Nothing is more English than invading France.

Also, the French actually have a governing body for the French language which determines official correct usage, so I think they'd be on board with sticking with the rules your language already has rather than playing fast and loose with them.

But the governing body is universally ignored.

Anyway, this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative) When will you invade the Baltic?

[BWR]

Since, y'know, clearly they do need education on double negatives.

English has historically had multiple negatives. Up four at least. "Heo næfre ne mihten ne nolden syððan fram his wylle gebugen," used for emphasis.
Or used for satirical effect by exaggeration in Chaucer "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight"

[factotum]

Why can't it be a feature of English (or at least some dialects of it)?

I think the point here is that people using a double negative are almost always using it *unintentionally* in English. The quoted lyric "We don't need no education", for instance, means we really *do* need some education due to the double negative--but that's not what the song is intended to convey, as you can clearly tell if you listen to the rest of the lyrics! I mean, this isn't a complaint about "To boldly go" being a split infinitive (which I never cared about and I doubt many people do), this is a case where the error actually changes the meaning of the sentence...

[Siosilvar]

"Irregardless" when one means "irrespective" or "regardless" is a fun one.

[Haruki-kun]

Honestly, if people would just take the time to see literal definition of the individual words instead of taking the meaning of those phrases for granted, this would be a lot less of a problem. Also, to add to your list of examples: "I could(sic) care less".

This one bothers me. I spent a really long time explaining it to my extended family once, and it ended nowhere. :smallfrown: Even harder because none of us are native speakers.


Who gets to decide if something is wrong? Isn't that like me going chastising my cat for meowing the wrong way? Language is a natural phenomenon, after all.

No, it isn't like telling off a cat for meowing wrong. There are grammar rules that are generally agreed upon by the community that speaks said language (or in the case of certain languages, by a governing body) that make something be correct or incorrect. Language evolves with time, you are right, and in many cases it evolves to the point where some things become acceptable where before they were considered wrong. But within the current time frame, those things are not considered correct and it is therefore fine to point out that someone else has committed a grammatical error.*

I'm sorry if I'm not understanding your points correctly, but it sounds like you're saying that vocabulary, grammatical, or general syntax errors are fine in language.

*Whether it is polite or not aside.


But double negatives is a feature of many languages, like French. (http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/negation_double.htm)

But not of English. An English speaker who hears the phrase "I didn't bring nothing" will think one of two things: S/he will think the speaker is stressing that they didn't come empty-handed, but rather brought something with them, or they will think the speaker misspoke. This causes confusion.

Conversely, a Spanish speaker (to use a similar language to French), could hear the same phrase, "No traje nada" and understand that the speaker is saying they didn't bring anything with them. Because this is understood by the speakers of that language.

Which brings me to the next point:


Why can't it be a feature of English (or at least some dialects of it)? Or are you going to invade France and tell them to stop?

English isn't algebra.

More languages with double negatives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative)

I would say that if lots of people are using double negatives, and are being understood, than that is acceptable [language].

Because they're different languages. Using a double negative is not wrong, it's just not used in English. And the language works just fine without them.

[SiuiS]

Someone else already addressed the buttload//boatload issue below, but I wanted to respond about the other one.

It's just that single phrase that's like that, not all cases of "another thing." Here's what the phrase means:

If you think [X]*, then you've got another think coming.**
*If you think [X]
*which you clearly do, or I wouldn't be saying this
*which is also NOT the way things are going to be
**then circumstances/my actions/events/etc. are going to force you to rethink ("another think") and change what you think because you're wrong

Link (http://grammarist.com/usage/another-think-coming/)

Your link clearly says itself that "another thing" makes more literal sense. It is wrong to say another thing if and only if you are intending to paraphrase the original; as a standalone statement it makes perfect sense in English. It's entirely possible it has multiple genesises independently as people develop their language skill. Saying it's wrong because they aren't properly quoting or paraphrasing someone they have no intention of quoting or paraphrasing, well, it strikes me as needlessly backwards.


I think the point here is that people using a double negative are almost always using it *unintentionally* in English. The quoted lyric "We don't need no education", for instance, means we really *do* need some education due to the double negative--but that's not what the song is intended to convey, as you can clearly tell if you listen to the rest of the lyrics! I mean, this isn't a complaint about "To boldly go" being a split infinitive (which I never cared about and I doubt many people do), this is a case where the error actually changes the meaning of the sentence...

That's not quite accurate, though. The word "no", when used in that fashion, denotes 'any amount'. The sentence does not expand to "we do not need zero amounts of education", it literally expands to "we do not require any education". It's as grammatically correct as the word ain't.

This is only a grammatical error in the same way that interpreting a Russian sentence using English rules produces errors.

[Remmirath]

Eh, "you've got another think coming" makes much more sense to me than "you've got another thing coming". I was not under the impression that if used in an entirely different context "another thing" referred back to the "another think/another thing coming" phrase, and in other contexts, it does usually make more sense to say "another thing" (and sometimes no sense to say "another think").


Skeppio, "I could care less" is an Americanism--it's what they say in those circumstances, not some mistake people on the Internet make.

No, it isn't. Or at least, it's not a mistake that all Americans make, and I would contend strongly that it is indeed a mistake and not simply a case of regionalism. Granted, it is a mistake I hear and see sadly often around here, but I have observed many people using the correct phrase as well. It may be a more common mistake in America than it is elsewhere; that I'll not argue.


I usually assume that people who use phrases like "nip it in the butt" don't read enough books. If you read a lot you end up learning words/phrases that you don't know how to pronounce (like when I was a little kid and thought epitome rhymed with home and rendezvous rhymed with moose). When you don't read enough professionally-edited prose, you end up learning words/phrases that you don't know how to spell, because you've only ever heard them, or seen them spelled wrong by similarly-uneducated folks online.


I agree. There are far more words that I've not known how to pronounce than those that I've not known how to spell. I did not used to believe that large numbers of people could have somehow made it most of their lives without ever seeing many rather common words and phrases written, but that makes much more sense as an explanation than that they saw those things written, and then proceeded to speak and write them incorrectly regardless.

[BWR]

But not of English. An English speaker who hears the phrase "I didn't bring nothing" will think one of two things: S/he will think the speaker is stressing that they didn't come empty-handed, but rather brought something with them, or they will think the speaker misspoke. This causes confusion.

Did people miss my post? Multiple negatives are an aspect of English and have been for centuries. The only people who disagree with this were some people a little while ago who decided that English should be more like formal logic and Latin, and insisted upon change. Plenty of dialects still use multiple negatives without anyone getting confused about what is being said. The restriction against multiple negatves is an artificial imposition on English and one that is entirely pointless.

[Aedilred]

Who gets to decide if something is wrong?
I do!

Or rather, everyone does. Get it wrong and you will be judged accordingly. I had a fun discussion with one of my tutors last year who went on a rant about people putting split infinitives in legal documents. I countered with the point that there's nothing actually wrong with split infinitives in English and it comes from a transposed rule in Latin and hypercorrection on the part of classicists. We eventually agreed that, even if it's technically ok, it's still best not to do it, since it's not worth taking the risk that the person reading knows the rule is bunkum and you want to create as favourable an impression as possible - especially given they're likely to be lawyers, a group of people not known for their lack of pedantry.

Now, yes, the key point of language is to make yourself understood, so as long as you're doing that you're ok (although using correct grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. helps enormously with that). However almost as important is not to annoy unnecessarily anyone to whom you're trying to convey information through sloppy or inappropriate language. There's a social level to language as well as a linguistic one.

"I could care less" drives me up the wall. And that is wrong. I don't buy that it's "ironic" or sarcastic, either, because it's used in exactly the same tone, context and sense as the logical and sense-making "I couldn't care less", and I've never heard it used in isolation with any suggestion of actual sarcasm. Curiously, I've only seen it appear in the last couple of years, mostly from American sources and online, but I daresay it's been lurking for a while.

"Buttload" is accurate, based on the butt as a unit of measurement (of wine) as mentioned above. I am not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if "boatload" is a bowdlerisation of "buttload" based on an etymological misinterpretation.

I suspect "another thing coming" derived from "another think coming" simply because of the difficulty of enunciating the "k-c" and when speaking quickly the "k" was dropped to a "g" sound. Initially, everyone knows what you mean, filter by Chinese whispers and "another thing" becomes standard because that's what people have heard. There's no reason why "you've got another thing coming" is itself inaccurate; it just doesn't work in the original context.

Of course, to add to the list of complaints, "literally", used to mean "figuratively". I know one or two people (I do it myself from time to time when I think the company will appreciate it) who have started using "figuratively" as an emphatic, just because. Given that even the OED has offered an alternative definition of "literally" meaning "not literally", though, I have no idea what purpose that word serves in our language any more.

[Archonic Energy]

Except "boat load" is generally acknowledged to mean a very large quantity of something, and I don't see that being the case with a "butt load" in the context you've just brought up... :smallamused:

Skeppio, "I could care less" is an Americanism--it's what they say in those circumstances, not some mistake people on the Internet make. Yes, it makes no sense whatsoever, but it's not quite the same thing as Fiery Diamond is talking about.

(And obligatory David Mitchell link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw)

damn, you beat me to it.
I do like Mitchell's rants.

[Aedilred]

Oh, here's another one: rein/reign confusion.

Reign - period of sovereign authority/possession or exercise of sovereign authority etc. (noun/verb)
Rein(s) - something used to control a horse/using the reins (noun/verb)
(Also, Rain - water falling from the sky/the falling of said water (noun/verb))

To rein in an unruly subordinate is to put them under tighter control, as you would rein in a horse.
Giving someone free rein means you will allow them to do things their own way, as you would release a horse from your immediate control. However you might rein them in later.

To reign in an unruly subordinate is to become the master of at least some of their internal organs.
To give someone free reign would be to put them completely in charge with no restrictions on their authority. You cannot reign them in later, because that phrase makes no sense.

I can see how confusion might arise, but the former versions are correct. Alas, I mostly see the latter. I have even seen people talk about the "rein" of a king or whatever.

[Jaycemonde]

*Buttload//Boatload

I'm sure someone's covered this already, but buttload isn't really a good example. A lot of people say it on purpose, myself included. (I also say "assload", but you know.)

Anyway, one I hear on occasion is "Blood is thicker than water." This isn't true in the way people use it--that birth family is more important than friends--because the original quote reads, "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb," which means the exact opposite.

Then you have several rather controversial phrases in Leviticus, which range from "you shouldn't apply those to modern times in any way to begin with" to "but that means you don't sleep in someone else's bed" depending on context.

[Domino Quartz]

:smallbiggrin: I just discovered something interesting - multiple negations in sentences were not uncommon in Early Modern English (http://public.oed.com/aspects-of-english/english-in-time/grammar-in-early-modern-english/). Not only that, but they would sometimes add a negative prefix to a word whose meaning involved "undoing" something (e.g. "unloose") in order to add emphasis. One thing that people on the internet do that annoys me, though, is to claim that prepositions are forbidden at the ends of sentences. That rule literally does not exist in English. There's also the phrase (not necessarily on the internet, and it doesn't particularly annoy me) "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." The actual quote is "Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned." Then there's "Elementary, my dear Watson", which was never said by Sherlock Holmes in any original Arthur Conan Doyle canon.

[Aedilred]

:smallbiggrin: I just discovered something interesting - multiple negations in sentences were not uncommon in Early Modern English (http://public.oed.com/aspects-of-english/english-in-time/grammar-in-early-modern-english/). Not only that, but they would sometimes add a negative prefix to a word whose meaning involved "undoing" something (e.g. "unloose") in order to add emphasis. One thing that people on the internet do that annoys me, though, is to claim that prepositions are forbidden at the ends of sentences. That rule literally does not exist in English.
Like the split infinitives, though, it is an assumed rule by many people, so it's wise to avoid it even if not wrong. Also, while it's sometimes impossible to avoid, it's usually more elegant to avoid ending sentences with prepositions where you can.


There's also the phrase (not necessarily on the internet, and it doesn't particularly annoy me) "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." The actual quote is "Heaven hath no rage like love to hatred turned, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorned." Then there's "Elementary, my dear Watson", which was never said by Sherlock Holmes in any original Arthur Conan Doyle canon.

Yeah, misquotes abound. At least with the "Hell hath..." that's essentially an abbreviated version, since the full one is more than twice as long. In the "Elementary, my dear Watson" category, we have, famously, "Beam me up, Scotty", "Luke, I am your father" and "Do you feel lucky, punk?". Among people generally of an older generation, "Lead on, MacDuff" and "Play it again, Sam". Currently in vogue on the internet, "Brace yourself: winter is coming".

[Haruki-kun]

Did people miss my post? Multiple negatives are an aspect of English and have been for centuries. The only people who disagree with this were some people a little while ago who decided that English should be more like formal logic and Latin, and insisted upon change. Plenty of dialects still use multiple negatives without anyone getting confused about what is being said. The restriction against multiple negatves is an artificial imposition on English and one that is entirely pointless.


English has historically had multiple negatives. Up four at least. "Heo næfre ne mihten ne nolden syððan fram his wylle gebugen," used for emphasis.
Or used for satirical effect by exaggeration in Chaucer "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight"

I did not, but isn't that Old English? Because that's practically a different language.

[Frozen_Feet]

To all the people saying "it's like punishing a cat for meowing wrong", a cat that's raised in absence of other cats will in fact meow wrong, causing other cats to not understand it and possibly even be violent towards it. Similar phenomenom is observable with social signals of dogs and birds. A dog that's had its tail cut off cannot express its feelings to other dogs as well, causing other dogs to attack it in misunderstanding.

[Asta Kask]

To all the people saying "it's like punishing a cat for meowing wrong", a cat that's raised in absence of other cats will in fact meow wrong, causing other cats to not understand it and possibly even be violent towards it. Similar phenomenom is observable with social signals of dogs and birds. A dog that's had its tail cut off cannot express its feelings to other dogs as well, causing other dogs to attack it in misunderstanding.

So are you saying that kids who use double negatives were raised in isolation?

[Frozen_Feet]

Um.... possibly? They do tend to end up with their fair share of other behavioral and social problems. :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

You... have a reference for that?

[Frozen_Feet]

Sure.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child) [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_development) I tried Google Scholar too, but the first three articles were inaccessible to me.

[Asta Kask]

Are you saying that Mick Jagger is a Feral Child? After all, he uses the double negative?

[BWR]

I did not, but isn't that Old English? Because that's practically a different language.

The point is that the restriction against multiple negatives was introduced by people who thought English should be more like Latin, it wasn't descriptive of the language at the time the grammars were written.
Like I already said.

Multiple negatives are aspects of several dialects and are inherited from earlier forms of the language, not something that has arisen from nothing.
Like I said.

[the_druid_droid]

Hmm, interesting thread.

I'm going to have to disagree with people calling out "We don't need no education" since there's a pretty reasonable argument that a nonstandard grammatical format was deliberately chosen to underline the anti-establishment tone of the song. And, y'know, the whole Wall album...

In fact, for songs generally, rhythm and cadance are as important as grammar, if not moreso. Very few people complain about poets bending English in all sorts of ways for effect, so I don't really see why music shouldn't get a pass on the subject, even if it is dirty old rock'n'roll.

I think the buttload/boatload argument makes the same error Pinker was calling out in his article - words are not substituted by speakers because they sound alike or rhyme; rather the people involved are often quite intentional in their choices. While buttload may not be a standard unit of measurement (coincidences already mentioned in the thread aside) it's certainly a picturesque phrasing, which is probably much more relevant to the actual intent in conversation. It certainly sticks in my head better than boatload would.

Overall, I think I'm going to have to side with Pinker and the linguists on this. English does have grammatical rules, and knowing them is useful, especially in formal situations where education and polish are most germane. But in common conversation, overregulation only serves to reduce expressive potential, and on the Internet? Well, I could care less.

[Wardog]

the more mistakes I tend to make in proofreading, because after enough repetitions, the wrong stuff starts looking right.

Its got to the stage where if I see any of the words to/too/two, or capital/capitol, or various other commonly confused homophones, my brain automatically assumes "wrong!".

[Haruki-kun]

Did people miss my post? Multiple negatives are an aspect of English and have been for centuries. The only people who disagree with this were some people a little while ago who decided that English should be more like formal logic and Latin, and insisted upon change. Plenty of dialects still use multiple negatives without anyone getting confused about what is being said. The restriction against multiple negatves is an artificial imposition on English and one that is entirely pointless.


The point is that the restriction against multiple negatives was introduced by people who thought English should be more like Latin, it wasn't descriptive of the language at the time the grammars were written.
Like I already said.

Multiple negatives are aspects of several dialects and are inherited from earlier forms of the language, not something that has arisen from nothing.
Like I said.

I read what you said.

I'm not arguing about the origins of the use or banning of double negatives. I'm referring to the validity of using them in modern English, which is entirely different from the language it evolved from.

[factotum]

I agree with Haruki. Saying "Well, English used to work that way 500 years ago, so it should work that way now!" is a somewhat strange attitude--should we actually all be speaking Old English, then? What's the word for "microprocessor" in that language? :smallwink: Languages evolve all the time--what we should be doing is attempting to speak (and write) them in the most correct way as they stand *now*. From that viewpoint, double negatives are bad, m'kay?

[BWR]

I agree with Haruki. Saying "Well, English used to work that way 500 years ago, so it should work that way now!" is a somewhat strange attitude--should we actually all be speaking Old English, then? What's the word for "microprocessor" in that language? :smallwink: Languages evolve all the time--what we should be doing is attempting to speak (and write) them in the most correct way as they stand *now*. From that viewpoint, double negatives are bad, m'kay?

How many times do I have to say this?
THERE ARE MODERN ENGLLISH DIALECTS THAT USE MULTIPLE NEGATIVES! It is inherited from older forms and not a recent phenomenon. It is English. Saying that people shouldn't do X in Language Y because it does not occur in (mostly) unrelated Language Z is ridiculous. You might as well say "glottal stops are wrong because they don't have them in Latin". Yes, there are English dialects where multiple negatives to reinforce a negative are not used. I personally don't, but there are dialects where you do; does anyone here want to claim these aren't real English?

Now you can make a very strong case for avoiding the use of reinforcing multiple negatives in written English, because it has standards that don't necessarily work for or are necessary for spoken English, and for ease of use there should be some restrictions on what is possible, but saying 'double negatives are wrong in English' is very obviously wrong because some people use multiple negatives to reinforce a negative and have been for centuries without break.

[enderlord99]

You ever notice how some people put their Personal Identification Number numbers into Automated Teller Machine machines?

[Asta Kask]

Do double negatives - used to reinforce the negative - lessen comprehension?

[Domino Quartz]

Do double negatives - used to reinforce the negative - lessen comprehension?

Not for me, they don't.
See what I did there? :smalltongue:
I think the misunderstanding is due to the fact that in people's minds, formal Standard English = Correct English, and therefore "incorrect in Standard English = incorrect in Correct English." In my opinion, multiple negatives should be avoided in formal spoken and written English to avoid confusion, but also be considered acceptable in colloquial English as long as they are not phrased in a confusing way.

[Aedilred]

How many times do I have to say this?
THERE ARE MODERN ENGLLISH DIALECTS THAT USE MULTIPLE NEGATIVES! It is inherited from older forms and not a recent phenomenon. It is English. Saying that people shouldn't do X in Language Y because it does not occur in (mostly) unrelated Language Z is ridiculous. You might as well say "glottal stops are wrong because they don't have them in Latin". Yes, there are English dialects where multiple negatives to reinforce a negative are not used. I personally don't, but there are dialects where you do; does anyone here want to claim these aren't real English?
What goes for one dialect doesn't go for all of them. That's the thing about dialects. There are dialects that still use "thee". And Old and Middle English are actually different languages from Modern English, with a completely different grammatical structure in the case of Old English, so the view that "it's in Old English so it's ok" doesn't really help.


Now you can make a very strong case for avoiding the use of reinforcing multiple negatives in written English, because it has standards that don't necessarily work for or are necessary for spoken English, and for ease of use there should be some restrictions on what is possible, but saying 'double negatives are wrong in English' is very obviously wrong because some people use multiple negatives to reinforce a negative and have been for centuries without break.
And the thread is at least nominally about what people say on the internet, where written English is the norm.


Do double negatives - used to reinforce the negative - lessen comprehension?
They can, depending on context. It's like the use of "literally" where it could be being used either erroneously or correctly but you don't know which.


You ever notice how some people put their Personal Identification Number numbers into Automated Teller Machine machines?
This became a hilarious in-joke among my social group; it started with ATM machines, which became Automatic ATM Machines, and reached its apogee after one of us heard an announcement that a given location was covered by closed circuit CCTV television cameras. We would sit around talking about our digital versatile DVD disc collection, and so forth. Good times.

[Asta Kask]

They can, depending on context. It's like the use of "literally" where it could be being used either erroneously or correctly but you don't know which.

Which one is the "correct" and which is the "erroneously"?

[Aedilred]

Which one is the "correct" and which is the "erroneously"?

When talking about "literally"? The correct meaning is "this literally happened". The erroneous meaning is "this figuratively happened." The problem is that unless you know whether someone is using it correctly or not, the word is useless, since its true meaning and its commonly-used erroneous meaning are antonyms. So if I were to say "she literally died" in a context where someone could have actually died, you don't know whether she died or not and the "literally" serves to make the sentence more ambiguous. Although since I only use "literally" to mean "literally", if I say that you can be fairly safe in the assumption that someone actually did die.

In the case of double negatives, in modern standard (written) (Commonwealth) English (dunno about American, but I assume it's the same) the double negative cancels out the negative meaning rather than emphasising it. In a context where it could mean either, using it as an emphatic increases dramatically the chances of being misunderstood.

[Asta Kask]

When talking about "literally"? The correct meaning is "this literally happened". The erroneous meaning is "this figuratively happened." The problem is that unless you know whether someone is using it correctly or not, the word is useless, since its true meaning and its commonly-used erroneous meaning are antonyms. So if I were to say "she literally died" in a context where someone could have actually died, you don't know whether she died or not and the "literally" serves to make the sentence more ambiguous. Although since I only use "literally" to mean "literally", if I say that you can be fairly safe in the assumption that someone actually did die.

However, according to Merriam-Webster "literally" can now mean "figuratively". What standards are you using?

[Gnomvid]

However, according to Merriam-Webster "literally" can now mean "figuratively". What standards are you using?

Sorry but no "Literally" and "figuratively" are not interchangeable

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/figurative

[Asta Kask]

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_mea ns_figuratively_newscred/

Your first link has what I'm talking about as option no. 2. "Virtually" in this sense is the same as "figuratively".

[Aedilred]

However, according to Merriam-Webster "literally" can now mean "figuratively". What standards are you using?

Pre-2011 standards, before the language was murdered. This is the problem with descriptivist linguistics. "Literally" is now, literally, a useless word.

Being British, Merriam-Webster isn't the standard dictionary here, mind. Although I think it's in the OED too.

[Asta Kask]

Pre-2011 standards, before the language was murdered. This is the problem with descriptivist linguistics. "Literally" is now, literally, a useless word.

Being British, Merriam-Webster isn't the standard dictionary here, mind. Although I think it's in the OED too.

And those damn kids should get off your lawn!

You should have a post- as well, since the language has changed a bit since the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

[Frozen_Feet]

Are you saying that Mick Jagger is a Feral Child? After all, he uses the double negative?

Now you're taking the joke too far... but maybe. :smalltongue:

[Aedilred]

And those damn kids should get off your lawn!

You should have a post- as well, since the language has changed a bit since the Anglo-Saxon invasion.

See, the "oh, languages change, get over it, this isn't the Middle Ages" argument is a bit of a cheap one. I did say 2011, not 446. And it also kind of misses the point. Obviously English has changed quite a lot over the centuries, but that's the thing - over centuries. The bulk of the language has remained essentially unchanged for 500 years. The problem with modern descriptivism is that the internet has allowed the easy propagation of errors, misspellings, miscommunications and so forth and by surrendering to that we accelerate the process of change so that it's visibly changing on a year-by-year, even month-by-month basis.

But often it's a relatively small subset of the whole population who are driving the change and by pandering to their errors rather than attempting to correct them it gradually homogenises the language as a whole until words become - like "literally" - useless, and the language is the worse for it.

[Asta Kask]

But "literally" isn't useless. Seriously, if I write "I literally exploded when...", do you really doubt what happened? You might as well say that "who" is useless now because it can be used in to objective and subjective case. Or that "you" is useless because it can refer to the singular as well as the plural (and the objective as well as the subjective case).

I think your position reduces to "we should all speak as I did when I was 15-20", which I find rather silly.

[Tvtyrant]

Pre-2011 standards, before the language was murdered. This is the problem with descriptivist linguistics. "Literally" is now, literally, a useless word.

Being British, Merriam-Webster isn't the standard dictionary here, mind. Although I think it's in the OED too.

But I thought we all had to ignore old versions of English because they are no longer correct? Or is it really that "correct" English happens to be transitive and complaining about common errors is the same as complaining about its evolution?

[Frozen_Feet]

But I thought we all had to ignore old versions of English because they are no longer correct? Or is it really that "correct" English happens to be transitive and complaining about common errors is the same as complaining about its evolution?

When you consider a lot of biological evolution is based on, essentially, errors, and many of those errors fail to survive because they don't fit the situation...

[Aedilred]

But "literally" isn't useless. Seriously, if I write "I literally exploded when...", do you really doubt what happened? You might as well say that "who" is useless now because it can be used in to objective and subjective case. Or that "you" is useless because it can refer to the singular as well as the plural (and the objective as well as the subjective case).

Well, obviously, these examples are ridiculous. The problems arise when the context isn't clear and it could mean either. As is the case with "literally" quite a lot. As I mentioned before.

Language is about communication. Defining a word so that it can mean its own antonym and in any situation where the two could be confused there is no way of telling which meaning is meant without metaknowledge of the speaker or asking for clarification runs directly counter to the entire purpose of language in the first place.

Of course, I forgot that it's impossible for anyone to be wrong about anything, so I apologise for that. That was wrong differently right of me.

But really, I find the universal permissive descriptivism approach often advocated to be just as foolish and infuriating as the unchanging monolithic prescriptivism - which is a straw man anyway. This is really just one of the front lines between Law and Chaos, I guess.

[Asta Kask]

See, the "oh, languages change, get over it, this isn't the Middle Ages" argument is a bit of a cheap one. I did say 2011, not 446.

Yes, but when is your "post"? 1500? Then double negatives are fine. And "awful" means the same as "awe-inspiring".


And it also kind of misses the point. Obviously English has changed quite a lot over the centuries, but that's the thing - over centuries. The bulk of the language has remained essentially unchanged for 500 years.

[QUOTE]'And in part him; but' you may say 'not well:
But, if't be he I mean, he's very wild;
Addicted so and so:' and there put on him
What forgeries you please; marry, none so rank
As may dishonour him; take heed of that;
But, sir, such wanton, wild and usual slips
As are companions noted and most known
To youth and liberty.

In fact, when I saw this I thought it was the text to the new Miley Cyrus song.


The problem with modern descriptivism is that the internet has allowed the easy propagation of errors, misspellings, miscommunications and so forth and by surrendering to that we accelerate the process of change so that it's visibly changing on a year-by-year, even month-by-month basis.

Reference? What evidence do you have for this thesis?


But often it's a relatively small subset of the whole population who are driving the change and by pandering to their errors rather than attempting to correct them it gradually homogenises the language as a whole until words become - like "literally" - useless, and the language is the worse for it.

Homogenisation tends to slow change rather than accelerate it. Evolutionary change in a large species pool is slower than it is in a small one. I would expect the same is true in languages.


Well, obviously, these examples are ridiculous. The problems arise when the context isn't clear and it could mean either. As is the case with "literally" quite a lot. As I mentioned before.

Here an example would be nice.


Language is about communication.

Not... exactly. It's about social situations, and there are quite a few situations where miscommunication can provide a benefit. And language supports this use.


Defining a word so that it can mean its own antonym and in any situation where the two could be confused there is no way of telling which meaning is meant without metaknowledge of the speaker or asking for clarification runs directly counter to the entire purpose of language in the first place.

We must immediately purge the language of these words/phrases (at least of one of their meanings):

"To cleave" can mean "to cling" or "to split".
"Custom" can mean "standard" (shorthand for customary) or "tailored".
"To dust" can mean to remove dust (cleaning a house) or to add dust (e.g. to dust a cake with powdered sugar).
"Inflammable" technically means "capable of burning" but is commonly taken to mean "unburnable".[1]
"Oversight" (uncountable) means "supervision", "an oversight" (countable) means "not noticing something".
"Pass on" can mean "reject from" and "continue through a process" (e.g. "Let's pass on this candidate").
"Refrain" means both non-action and the repetition of an action, e.g. in musical notation.
"To rent" can mean "to borrow from" or "to lend to".
"To replace" can mean "to place back where it was" or "substitute with something else".
"Resigned" can mean "to have signed again" or "to have quit". The former is sometimes hyphenated as "re-signed".
"To sanction" can mean "to permit" or "to punish".
"Off" can mean "something that is not operating" or it can mean "to start happening in an excited way" (e.g. "The buzzer went off").
"Belie" can mean "to show to be false" or it can mean "to misrepresent".
"Literally" means exact or not exaggerated, but due to colloquial use even the Oxford Dictionary has added a second definition: "Used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true".
"Deceptively" followed by any adjective can have ambiguous meaning: for example, a room being "deceptively large" could be larger or smaller than it seems.



Of course, I forgot that it's impossible for anyone to be wrong about anything, so I apologise for that. That was wrong differently right of me.

People can be definitely be wrong. Saying that 'literally' is now useless, for example, is wrong.


But really, I find the universal permissive descriptivism approach often advocated to be just as foolish and infuriating as the unchang[ing monolithic prescriptivism - which is a straw man anyway. This is really just one of the front lines between Law and Chaos, I guess.

So what changes would you advocate to the pre-2011 post-ca1511 language?

[Aedilred]

"To cleave" can mean "to cling" or "to split".
"Cleave to" vs "cleave"

"Custom" can mean "standard" (shorthand for customary) or "tailored".
Noun vs adjective.

"To dust" can mean to remove dust (cleaning a house) or to add dust (e.g. to dust a cake with powdered sugar).
Always made clear by context.

Inflammable" technically means "capable of burning" but is commonly taken to mean "unburnable".[1]
People commonly take things to mean all sorts of things they don't. Pass.

"Oversight" (uncountable) means "supervision", "an oversight" (countable) means "not noticing something".
As you say yourself, uncountable vs countable.

"Pass on" can mean "reject from" and "continue through a process" (e.g. "Let's pass on this candidate").
On this one you have a point, albeit only in writing, since otherwise emphasis makes it clear.

"Refrain" means both non-action and the repetition of an action, e.g. in musical notation.
Verb vs noun.

"To rent" can mean "to borrow from" or "to lend to".
"Rent" vs "rent to".

And so on.


Here an example would be nice.

I gave you one back when this conversation started. You ignored it in favour of mockery.

Bye.

[Asta Kask]

As Britney Spears would say "I commend you to your own content". Or was it Shakespeare? I can hardly tell the language apart.

[Fragenstein]

"I could care less" drives me up the wall. And that is wrong. I don't buy that it's "ironic" or sarcastic, either, because it's used in exactly the same tone, context and sense as the logical and sense-making "I couldn't care less", and I've never heard it used in isolation with any suggestion of actual sarcasm. Curiously, I've only seen it appear in the last couple of years, mostly from American sources and online, but I daresay it's been lurking for a while.

This one has never bothered me, but I seem to remember hearing the phrase "As if I could care less", quite often in the late '70s/early '80s. That might just be my mis-imagination, though. The corruption to "I could care less" felt like a natural shortening as long as the tone reflected the required sarcasm.


"Buttload" is accurate, based on the butt as a unit of measurement (of wine) as mentioned above. I am not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if "boatload" is a bowdlerisation of "buttload" based on an etymological misinterpretation.

"Buttload" just seemed like a deliberate, juvenile corruption of boatload. The latter didn't quite have enough zing for us kids.


Of course, to add to the list of complaints, "literally", used to mean "figuratively". I know one or two people (I do it myself from time to time when I think the company will appreciate it) who have started using "figuratively" as an emphatic, just because. Given that even the OED has offered an alternative definition of "literally" meaning "not literally", though, I have no idea what purpose that word serves in our language any more.

S'truth. It seems as if "literally" adds almost nothing to a sentence other than an extra few syllables. Even when using the word "properly", what's it doing?

"I literally ate a ham sandwich."

Was there a chance the listener could think I figuratively ate a ham sandwich?

"I was so surprised, I literally sat down for a moment."

Sitting after a surprise requires clarification?

I'm only really comfortable when there is a decent chance of a literal statement being taken figuratively.

"His head literally exploded."
"You mean figuratively."
"No, literally. The Road Runner tricked him into eating the explosive bird seed and the Coyote's head literally exploded."

Here's one that I only learned recently:

Tow the Line/Toe the Line.

I honestly wasn't aware it was "Toe".

[SarahV]

Something about the literally/figuratively argument going on in this thread is bothering me... and it's this: language evolves, sure, but it's a two-way street. People like Aedilred (and myself) arguing that using "literally" to mean "figuratively" is stupid and silly and damaging to the language are just as much a part of that evolution as the people who are actually using the word in that way.

Language evolution doesn't mean "Some people are saying X, therefore we must all now embrace it forevermore without argument, because linguistic theory says so!" It means that some people say X, some people say Y, some people think X is stupid and make fun of people for saying it, some people argue endlessly about X and Y on the internet, some people roll their eyes and call those people grammar nazis, and the majority of people don't really care either way. Eventually, some version of the X vs. Y argument will win out; and someday everyone who isn't a linguist will forget it was ever an issue.

Lots of words are used in some trendy or strange way and then, a few years later, people stop saying them and those definitions or neologisms don't remain in the language. "Literally" as "figuratively" is a really good candidate for that to happen, IMO.

[Fragenstein]

Something about the literally/figuratively argument going on in this thread is bothering me... and it's this: language evolves, sure, but it's a two-way street. People like Aedilred (and myself) arguing that using "literally" to mean "figuratively" is stupid and silly and damaging to the language are just as much a part of that evolution as the people who are actually using the word in that way.

Except for me. I'm arguing that the word is almost entirely superfluous.

[BWR]

What goes for one dialect doesn't go for all of them. That's the thing about dialects. There are dialects that still use "thee". And Old and Middle English are actually different languages from Modern English, with a completely different grammatical structure in the case of Old English, so the view that "it's in Old English so it's ok" doesn't really help.


And the thread is at least nominally about what people say on the internet, where written English is the norm.


1. I don't recall claiming multiple negatives were a feature of all English dialects. I recall saying they were not. Pointing to older versions of the languages is to show that it is an inherited aspect in these dialects, not some recently developed oddity.

2. And the sort of mistakes people make on the 'net are restricted to the 'net? Most of the listed issues are not unique to the Internet or even written English. People not knowing the difference between 'lie' and 'lay' or the meaning of 'figuratively' is not a matter of purely written English.

[Haruki-kun]

But "literally" isn't useless. Seriously, if I write "I literally exploded when...", do you really doubt what happened?

I wouldn't doubt what happened I would just think you expressed it wrong.


You might as well say that "who" is useless now because it can be used in to objective and subjective case. Or that "you" is useless because it can refer to the singular as well as the plural (and the objective as well as the subjective case).

No. No, you might not. In order for this argument to be valid one meaning of the word "you" would have to be "you" and the other meaning of the word "you" would have to be "not you."

"Literally" was originally taken to mean "not figuratively, in case there was any confusion." For instance "I was literally glued to my seat. I spilled glue by accident and forgot to clean it."


I think your position reduces to "we should all speak as I did when I was 15-20", which I find rather silly.

I don't know about Aidelred, but I don't want everyone to speak like I did when I was 15. ._. I said "lol" in real life.

On another note:


Yes, but when is your "post"? 1500? Then double negatives are fine. And "awful" means the same as "awe-inspiring".

Something awful can be awe-inspiring, too... I understand what you mean by this point, though. I'll grant you this one.




It's about social situations, and there are quite a few situations where miscommunication can provide a benefit. And language supports this use.

The intention is to avoid miscommunication.


We must immediately purge the language of these words/phrases (at least of one of their meanings):

"To cleave" can mean "to cling" or "to split".
"Custom" can mean "standard" (shorthand for customary) or "tailored".
"To dust" can mean to remove dust (cleaning a house) or to add dust (e.g. to dust a cake with powdered sugar).
"Inflammable" technically means "capable of burning" but is commonly taken to mean "unburnable".[1]
"Oversight" (uncountable) means "supervision", "an oversight" (countable) means "not noticing something".
"Pass on" can mean "reject from" and "continue through a process" (e.g. "Let's pass on this candidate").
"Refrain" means both non-action and the repetition of an action, e.g. in musical notation.[/B]
"To rent" can mean "to borrow from" or "to lend to".
"To replace" can mean "to place back where it was" or "substitute with something else".[/B]
"Resigned" can mean "to have signed again" or "to have quit". The former is sometimes hyphenated as "re-signed".
"To sanction" can mean "to permit" or "to punish".
"Off" can mean "something that is not operating" or it can mean "to start happening in an excited way" (e.g. "The buzzer went off").
"Belie" can mean "to show to be false" or it can mean "to misrepresent".
"Literally" means exact or not exaggerated, but due to colloquial use even the Oxford Dictionary has added a second definition: "Used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true".
"Deceptively" followed by any adjective can have ambiguous meaning: for example, a room being "deceptively large" could be larger or smaller than it seems.

Aidelred already addressed these individually, so I won't do it again, but I'll just make my stance the following: A lot of these are homonyms. A homonym is not the same as a misuse. Notably, the word "refrain" in this list. One is a verb, the other one is a noun. There isn't much room for confusion thanks to the context.



People can be definitely be wrong. Saying that 'literally' is now useless, for example, is wrong.

It's not useless. It's just confusing.

[Brazen Shield]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc&sns=em

[SiuiS]

You ever notice how some people put their Personal Identification Number numbers into Automated Teller Machine machines?

That does bother me, aye. PIN number works because the flow of the rhythm fits well enough, even if it's redundant, but arm machine is so clunky.


But "literally" isn't useless. Seriously, if I write "I literally exploded when...", do you really doubt what happened? You might as well say that "who" is useless now because it can be used in to objective and subjective case. Or that "you" is useless because it can refer to the singular as well as the plural (and the objective as well as the subjective case).

I think your position reduces to "we should all speak as I did when I was 15-20", which I find rather silly.

The problem there is not that "literally" has multiple meanings, but that "exploded" has multiple meanings, including an excessive expression of emotional distress in a wa that can cause anxiety and similar reactions in others. This person literally did do that.

The question is whether use of the word literal changes the possibilities of what literally happened. Can you literally perform a [colloquial phrase for an action not denoted by strict usage]?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc&sns=em

... Okay. You win.

[Wardog]

Pre-2011 standards, before the language was murdered. This is the problem with descriptivist linguistics. "Literally" is now, literally, a useless word.



Something about the literally/figuratively argument going on in this thread is bothering me... and it's this: language evolves, sure, but it's a two-way street. People like Aedilred (and myself) arguing that using "literally" to mean "figuratively" is stupid and silly and damaging to the language are just as much a part of that evolution as the people who are actually using the word in that way.

Language evolution doesn't mean "Some people are saying X, therefore we must all now embrace it forevermore without argument, because linguistic theory says so!" It means that some people say X, some people say Y, some people think X is stupid and make fun of people for saying it, some people argue endlessly about X and Y on the internet, some people roll their eyes and call those people grammar nazis, and the majority of people don't really care either way. Eventually, some version of the X vs. Y argument will win out; and someday everyone who isn't a linguist will forget it was ever an issue.

Lots of words are used in some trendy or strange way and then, a few years later, people stop saying them and those definitions or neologisms don't remain in the language. "Literally" as "figuratively" is a really good candidate for that to happen, IMO.

The problem seems to be that some descriptivist act exactly as SarahV says they shouldn't, and in doing so effectively wrap around and become prescriptivists.

To my mind, "how language is used" includes everyone that uses that language, including all the people who haven't accepted - or are even aware of - the latest trendy or technical meaning of a word. And also all the books etc that were written before the meaning changed but are still in reasonably common use. Unfortunately some people seem to latch on to very new meanings of words and insists those are (now) the only valid meaning and that everyone who still uses them in the old way (even if they are still the majority) have to "get with the times" and change. Or worse, they sometimes done seem to even be aware that their pet meaning is a minority and new meaning, and get surprised or confused when they see it used in an older way.