One of my pet peeves is when people demonstrate that they do not know what the word "literally" means. And now I see this... http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/15/living/literally-definition/index.html?sr=fb081513literallydefinition1p
There was a montage clip on "The Soup" a while back of some QVC sales pitch character saying everything she was hawking was 'literally' the best something. It was hilarious, there were dozens of 'literallys' in the clip. And since then the word du jour on QVC is 'actually'. Sad commentary on the verbal skills people are exposed to by example.
It's one of my pet-peeves as well. I have my own relationship with certain words that dictates the way I use them. I really hate the word 'geek' for instance, and I almost always use it in a slightly derogatory way. I really hate the word 'novel' too, as I find it a really stale and dispassionate word. But I always use them in the correct contexts!
This has always bugged me as well. To the extent a dictionary is meant to reflect the language and provide information as to actual usage, however, it makes sense that this be acknowledged.
It, like, totally doesn't bother me [MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION]: I once tripped myself into the word 'bread' being really weird and making no sense. It wore off by the morning, though...
[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION]: I once, when writing a uni essay about Pat Barker, repeated the word 'Regeneration' so much it became just a meaningless jumble of sounds I really really hated the very sound of. I hate it when words do that.
At first I was bothered by this, but then after thinking about how language has always been evolving over time, it's not so bad. I personally wouldn't use literally to mean figuratively, but a lot of people do.
This doesn't bug me as much as people saying "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less". That just comes down to laziness, doesn't it? You don't actually mean to say "hey, at least I care a little bit, not much, but a little"? I know the language does and is supposed to develop, but some of these developments just make me cringe.
Yeah, I saw this posted on reddit with the caption 'We did it guys, we finally killed English'. I feel like it should maybe matter if you know that you're using it incorrectly or not - yes, language is always evolving, but as long as you know how the word is actually intended to be used, you can appropriate it all you want for other purposes?
I agree. I'm all for descriptivism, but there are some changes that damage a language's capacity to convey information. The problem with English, at least in the U.S., is that schools don't make an effort to even explain the function of language when teaching kids. How do you get someone to understand why had went is painfully wrong when they've never even been shown the difference in meaning between had gone and went. They don't know why the two forms exist. I spent many years in the American South East and you hear people create unnecessarily long constructions or explanatory interjections simply because tense use is so muddled that they find themselves at a loss to give single action, completed action, incomplete action, continuous actions, etc. through verb tense.
I wonder how much of this is because people don't read. If you read a lot, even things like newspapers and magazines, you'll get the feel for what the language should sound like, in context. Something just doesn't 'feel' right when it's not, even if you can't quote a rule about it.
"Irregardless" still tops my list. And, no, I don't care that it's in the dictionary (standards dropping everywhere!!).
Yup. Also, the way that grammar policing is considered bad form in our culture. Point out someone's poor use of syntax and you're labeled a big fat meanie, and by that I mean nazi. In Spanish culture, we don't think twice about verbally cuffing someone for poor grammar. It does make for more careful daily use and less of a divide between casual and formal language.
In fact, they would probably say, "You're a Nazi, and your head is literally up your ass." Don't waste time and energy trying to teach a fish to waltz.
It's sad. Why is it that when a majority of people use grammar incorrectly we then make it an acceptable practice instead of holding to standards? It's as if everyone started to spell 'writing' without the 'w' it would eventually be acceptable. Well, according to this professor spelling and grammar are, “a bit unnecessary because they are skills that were very essential maybe 100 years ago but they are not right now,” Mitra said. “Firstly, my phone corrects my spelling so I don’t really need to think about it and, secondly, because I often skip grammar and write in a cryptic way.” We live in crazy times.
As regards this subject, complete agreement. Quite possibly one of the most ludicrous articles I've read this decade. I know he spoke about spelling and grammar, but by dint of that man's "logic" all math classes are also a complete waste of time because calculators are cheap enough to use as promotional give aways.
That's very interesting! I never realised native speakers can also be that confused. It explains why, when I emigrated to Aus with my perfect school English, the kids used to tell me that I sound like a Jane Austen novel. Mind you, I always welcomed and asked people to correct me, but my mum will declare blood vengeance on anyone who corrects her, because she is too hung up/can't get over her pride, and even after 30 years in high finance, working with people, she still sounds like she arrived six months ago.
It reminds me of a newscast a very long time ago, (I think it was re the mandatory testing of teachers for competency but I could be wrong there). In it the reporter interviewed a complaining woman who made the comment they were articulated. I still laugh to this day over that comment.
Oh, I just thought of one. Loose instead of lose. Grrrr.... And I'm not fond of bored of replacing bored with or bored by either, although I don't know that "bored of" is a grammatically incorrect phrase.
Although hearing people misuse the word 'literally' sends me to my angry place, where the blood of those who misuse the 'theirs' covers the walls and there's a special torture room for those who can't use 'a' and 'an' correctly, I don't think this is such a big thing. An annoying thing, yes, but if the language never changed, we would still be using old english, right? Verily, we would. The way I see it, evolution of language has three steps. 1) A moron who can't talk right makes a mistake. (Rage) 2) The mistake spreads, and despite heroic efforts to stop it, becomes common enough to be considered slang. (Denial) 3) The last defenses of the educated fall, and the mistake becomes so common, it becomes part of the language itself. (Resignation) Right now, I think we're in between 2 and 3. Ah, and a final 4th step: 'Grandma gets out her old grammar book and insists these young'uns don't know what they're talking about.' I know this step well. My mom uses it when my sister and I say 'on accident.' But... not all grammar mistakes make it into the dictionary. What do you guys think separates slang from mistakes, and why do some mistakes become accepted while others don't? Because if 'they're' and 'their' become interchangeable, I'm afraid I'll have to evacuate the planet.
I just realized that this change in definition ranks literally amongst the rarified set of contranyms. [sidenote]I was just forced to add contranym to my spellcheck. It's other spelling of contronym was also not registered by spellcheck. W T actual F?[/sidenote]
