Ok ok… I’ll be the one…
“Wrongly”
no worries I’ll use it the wrongliest
You can always go wrongliester!
I’ll use it righteously.
I’m gonna use it wrongteously
not not-heinous
Good wrongliesterness.
He wrongly assumed he was using the word wrongly.
Very bigly, indeed!
Incidentally, I really hate that the UK expression for when someone is feeling sick is “poorly”.
It’s got the “ly” ending which is one of the clear signs of an adverb, and in other contexts it is used as an adverb. But, for some reason the British have turned it into an adjective meaning sick. Sometimes they use it in a way where it can be seen as an adverb: “He’s feeling poorly”, in which case it seems to be modifying “feeling”. In the North American dialect you could substitute the adjective “sick”: “He’s feeling sick”. But, other times they say “She won’t be coming in today, she’s poorly”. What is the adverb modifying there, “is”?
Washing-up fluid.
Washing up what?
Dishes?
Dishwasher fluid.
Why fluid, not liquid? Air is a fluid too. Is it in gaseous form?
Also, why “washing-up”? Was “washing” not enough? Was a direction strictly necessary?
Plasma?
Think different
Some flat adverbs sound perfectly natural to most speakers, like “play nice” or “drive safe”. Others have less acceptability among people in general, like “That tastes real good.”
Tastes real goodly.
I don’t even see “nice” in “play nice” as an adverb. You could switch “play” for “be” – “be nice”, same with “be safe”.
There’s that old line that if my aunt had wheels she’d be a bicycle. Maybe the command form is muddling the topic here, but using the be-verb with an adjective like that attaches a subject complement, essentially describing the subject. But “I am fast” describing a person doesn’t mean that saying “I drive fast” is describing a drive as a noun.
Playly not nice.
I’m gonna get the shit downvoted out of me for this, but the problem with this idea is that insular communities tend to redefine words and then expect everyone outside their bubble to know their new definition. Doing so also robs the language of a word that served a specific purpose, such as in the case of the word “literally.”
My pet example is Americans and “ironically/unironically”.
Please don’t do this to me
Literally.
I literally love and hate this comment.
Lol, I came here to make this exact comment
That’s dumb (which originally meant “mute” or “unable to speak”)
This is real and actually quite interesting to look at the history of. For example, the word “Decimate” IIRC was originally defined as killing one for every ten people of a group of people. Now, its used as a term for high impact destruction.
My usual example is manufacture — to make by hand, but it’s more commonly used now to mean machine manufactured and made by hand is called handmade.
That’s a good one. In school they had me memorize a novel of Latin root words, which is where things can get frustrating. You take a word and piece together the meaning, only to find out the definition has changed so drastically over the years that the root words are now nonsense. Both of our examples fit this description.
Yeah, I’m prone to go down rabbit holes looking at the etymology and origin of related words for hours. Latin was one of my favorite classes in high school. It’s great for world building and stylizing prose when writing fiction.
Sometimes the etymology is just weird because the current meaning is from an abbreviation of a phrase and the roots don’t make sense in isolation, such as perfidious, from the roots per fidem “through faith” but its meaning is from the larger phrase “deceiving through faith.”
Mine is electrocuted which means to die or get executed by electricity but people say “the person got electrocuted and is recovering in the hospital”.
I mean, I’d still call 1 out of 10 people dying “high impact.”
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
It was originally killing 1 in every 10 by lot. In other words, not in battle, but as a collective punishment of a unit 1 in 10 soldiers would be randomly selected and killed.
1 in 10 soldiers dying in a battle doesn’t sound all that bad. But, 1 in 10 soldiers being selected to be killed as a form of punishment for the unit sounds a lot worse.
IIRC the other nine had to kill them, by beating with sticks? which makes it so much worse. Rarely used in extremis I believe.
But do you mean literally everyone or literally everyone?
If it is not literally everyone, it still might be correct in the way that using a word for (one of) its jargon meaning(s) is correct. So, correct in context.
When using words to convey information to an audience to whom you might not be able to clarify, it is useful to use words for the meanings listed in common dictionar(y/ies) (“correctly”) so that the audience can resolve confusions through those dictionaries.
I think they were joking about the fact that the meaning of ‘literally’ has changed in the common vernacular to mean ‘figuratively’
I mean this i show it literally works, right?
Well. Sort of.
Some terminology is better defined by how the relevant experts use it. It’s singular and precise definition is required for any useful dialogue. If 99% of people call a kidney a liver but doctors call it a kidney its a kidney.
Some terminology evolves and is used differently by different groups. Sometimes the more illiterate group flattens the language by removing nuance or even entirely removing a concept from a language with no replacement. Arguably both definitions may be common usage but one is worse and using it means you are.
Some word usage just becomes so common everyone, even generational gaps understand it. If you talk to an 18 or a 65 year old and say the word blowjob, they both know what you mean, yet they aren’t out there blowing on dicks or trying to force air up urethras… Hopefully…
yet they aren’t out there blowing on dicks or trying to force air up urethras… Hopefully…
I see you don’t regularly read the sex forums and questions on reddit.
Hopes dashed. It’s not common, but there are some people who have the right combination of circumstances to make them think blowjobs involve the movement of air.
I feel like people forget that words can have multiple definitions. You can have a technical definition and a popular definition
And homonyms.
Ad hominem.
And I’m still gonna bitch about it if they’ve reduced the usefulness of a word due to habitual misuse!
My two are Literally, and Crescendo. I really hate it when they are used wrong, and now the wrong answers are considered acceptable. That means Literally actually holds no meaning at all, and by changing the definition of Crescendo, the last 500 years of Western Music Theory have been changed by people who have no understanding of music at all.
I was not aware of the crescendo one and looked it up. Imagine my surprise learning this dates back at least 100 years ago with the Great Gatsby (have not read it). I am now irrationaly angry that I’m learning about this way too late to complain about it.
Literally being used in the absurdist manner also dates back to the 1800s
I knew that and wasn’t irrationally angry at this one. A hyperbolic or absurd meaning does not bother me (but I get that its “overuse”, for a while, could).
Literally holds meaning, two meanings principally. They just happen to be opposite. “Literally” could mean either “actually” or “not actually, but similar in a way”, but wouldn’t ever mean “duck”.
“Literally” only holds the opposite meaning when used as a hyperbole.
You should literally literally when a literally flies straight for your face because those feathered fowl can be as aggressive as gooses.
How do you feel about other words with their own opposite meanings, like dust or sanction? If the meaning isn’t clear it’s almost always because the speaker constructed a sentence poorly, which of course can lead to misunderstandings even when not using contronyms.
Interesting! TIL
Literally was being used as an intensifier in both cases where it was being used to signify the truth of something and in the absurdist manner. So, no, it didn’t lose all meaning. So long as you’re not emphasizing something too absurd to be considered real, the original meaning still holds. And if someone uses the word to emphasize something that could be real, though unlikely, they’ll likely get the appropriate follow-up.
On the Crescendo one, do you also get mad about forte? Cause basically the same thing happened there. And no one will confuse the music term for the colloquial term in either case.
I hadn’t really thought about forte, but now that you mention it, yeah, that one pisses me off, too. Thinking about it, I do avoid using that term.
And Literally is supposed to mean that some thing is truly as described, to differentiate between exaggeration. So when it is used as exaggeration, it causes the sort of confusion that means exactly what the literal meaning is literally supposed to avoid.
Heaven forbid someone use a colloquialism! How will they ever be understood?
(For the sake of clarity I feel I must point out that I do not believe Heaven should, in fact, forbid such a practice. I fear without this clarification my first sentence is impossible to understand.)
You shouldn’t use religious slang in your writing, it offends the Puritans.
“Heaven” originally meant “the visible sky” so this is fine.
That evolution has happened SO many times. Why does “literally” give you fits when “awful” or “terrific” do not? Perhaps because it’s the shift you happen to be living through?
Or maybe those other things shouldn’t have happened, but it’s too late for them. Now we have to save the words that are in danger now.
If a boat is sinking, and I’m saying we have to save those people, would the proper response be “Well, where were you when the Titanic was going down? Why aren’t you all worried about them?”
This guy is trying to mop up the beach every time the tide comes in.
Nah, I’m just fighting the battle for Literally and Crescendo. Those are my hills to die on. I can’t save the entire literary world by myself.
Those words are already lost.
Holy shit, that’s good
It uses figurative language instead of the literal meaning of words so it’s complete nonsense.
Words aren’t “endangered”. There are literally an infinite number of potential words, if we need to reinvent a meaning, we can quite easily(see: synonym). Further, the original meanings still exist. You can still use “awful” to mean “inspiring awe” and you’re correct, you just won’t be understood.
I think “whence” is a near-perfect example. “Whence” means “from what origin”.
The word is used nearly exclusively in the phrase “from whence it came”, or “from (from what origin) it came”
Love it.
“I have to return back to the ATM machine, but I forgot my PIN number.”
Honestly, I could care less about this shit.
Do you care a lot or only a little?
I told you, I could care less! It’s a moot point!
But, how much less could you care? Alot less?
Ah, my favourite.
Gets my brain scrambling for what caring less than zero could be.
Negative care…
Turtles.
I literally don’t give a shit
And I don’t want any of your shit.
I grew up on dairy farm and it was one of my chores to shove the shit and then spread that shit nearly everyday. So I’ve had enough shit. I’m so done with that shit and the assholes it came out of. And I don’t need anyone giving me shit anymore either.
So you just keep your shit to yourself.
Cow shit’s not that bad.
Don’t tell me that’s bullshit.
I have walked in that shit, slipped in that shit, I have even fallen in that shit. Cow shit smells and tastes just as bad as the finest Bull shit. And that bullshit is mixed into that cow shit and the two can’t be separated. No matter how hard you try. And I ain’t dealing with any shit anymore for whatever time is left of my life.
But, I do like drinking my Daily Duck Shit. I have a cup of it right now. I love drinking my Daily Duck Shit and I always try to keep it on hand.
****For those that aren’t fairly deep into Chinese Oolong teas, Duck Shit, “Ya Shi Xiang”, is type of Dan-Cong Oolong tea. You can google Duck Shit tea and get at least one origin story. They are fun stories.
Try pig shit.
I can’t tell if you’re using this idiomatic expression in the wrong way on purpose for a great joke, or in an annoying, unaware way. 😅
Its obviously a joke.
But maybe you understood that and your comment is sarcastic as well. So now I am the one being woooshed.
Is… is your reply sarcastic too? How far does this sarcasm uncertainuum go?
🥸
For all intensive purposes, the meaning of words matters less than how we use it. Irregardless of how we decimate it’s meaning, so long as we get the point across there is no need to nip it in the butt. Most people could care less.
::glares:: Well done. 😆
I will hunt you for sport.
YeS, YoUrE rIgHt. aS lOnG aS tHe mEaNiNg iS uNdErStOod, iT dOeS NoT mAtTeR.
For all intensive purposes, the meaning of words matters less than how we use it.
I think you mean fewer than how we use it lol.
I’m filled with unreasonable blind rage now. Thank you.
I hate you.
I guess it’s a moot point
Definately!
I don’t see the backside of Morpheus’ head.
Should look like that:
i think he is looking at the meme which you are inside
Just realised there’s a gun pointed to Neo’s head in both images
Everyone has to agree tho.
Don’t be one of these dickheads that defines shit their own way then gets upset when nobody agrees with your dumbass. There’s quite a few people like that here on Lemmy and I find them to be the single most annoying type of user on this site.
It’s better to use words correctly, but in ways that call your understanding of the definition into question.
“I hacked into my sister’s facebook when she left it open on her laptop.”
“In an act of philanthropy I gave George the rest of my fries.”
“Mr. Hands died for his passion, a modern day saint.”
“Tiamat is a Bad Dragon.”
Yeah TRVE, making a point of intentionally being dumb usually means you’re an insufferable cvnt
Minor gripe - it’s not right to say that everyone has to agree, but it is sensible to point out that one person has no real basis for having unique meanings for terms and then reacting poorly when others fail to use them.
Every word had an evolution or hard origin, and each stepping stone on those journeys had some first user. By whatever means, some of those new words or new tweaks on existing words caught on and spread.
And sometimes, despite generally widespread acceptance of a change or a new word, some folks will bitterly hold on to the old ways for years or decades until they just die wrong about it.
By whatever means, some of those new words or new tweaks on existing words caught on and spread.
By whatever memes . . .
Can I have some more pixels please
deleted by creator
April I have more pixels please
June I have more pixels please.<- period
I don’t know, june you?
Just June?
Not every month?
Would you mind providing us a few more pixels? Only if it is no trouble o’course.
/j
So I should accept people saying “could care less” when they mean the exact opposite? Not sure I can do that.
Idioms don’t have to (and often don’t) make sense. How do you feel about “head over heels”?
Interesting - Wiktionary says that the phrase was originally “heels over head”, which makes sense when conveying the sense of tumbling over. I guess that became corrupted, resulting in “head over heels”. Maybe I should start saying “heels over head” then.
I mean, the main point is that language doesn’t have to make “logical” sense. It’s not a math problem. Just look at all the inconsistencies in pretty much every aspect of a language. It’s all there simply because of history and people agreeing on meanings for words and phrases. For example, you’ve got something like prepositions. There’s literally zero logical reason why we talk or speak to someone, but we don’t tell or converse to someone.
And people who are more rigid in thinking about language always seem to think the language they learned growing up is the most “correct” version, whether that has a basis in history or not. Like even though literally has been used as an intensifier for (literally) hundreds of years, that seems to be a sticking point, whereas something like very, which has a similar root (veracis meaning truth), any sentence using very doesn’t have to have an exact truthful meaning.
Hell, once we go back to “original” meanings of words, where do we stop? The singular use of “they” is older than that of singular “you”, but I somehow never see the “singular they is confusing” crowd advocating for a return to thee/thou.
Well I could care less if can’t do that
People need to start saying “God be whit ye!” again instead of “Goodbye” which IMO has nothing to do our Lord and Father in Heaven
Irregardless, you can still make fun of people for anything. Remember the US president and that disabled guy?
No, you should not.
Illiteracy isn’t a valid excuse.
I’ll die on that hill alongside ‘on accident’.
“Everyone” meaning the social media someone and their social set get their info and cues from, not the rest of the people around them.
“Everyone” meaning folks off-line who you feel the urge to keep correcting because you got hounded by grammar nazis on the internet and now the “correct” meaning is branded into your skull.
Off line? Who is being a grammar Nazi IRL?
