845
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
845 points (89.3% liked)
Political Memes
5453 readers
2978 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Downvoting for misuse of, "Literally."
I chose my words carefully.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/11/12/trump-compares-political-foes-to-vermin-on-veterans-day-echoing-nazi-propaganda/
I mean, that certainly strengthens the comparison, but it doesn't change the fact that you mean, "figuratively."
Incorrect. Literally has a legitimate colloquial use to refer to two things that are different but similar.
Obviously nothing is ever literally something else, you do not need that to be explained to you to understand the intended meaning of the hyperbole. Don't be intellectually dishonest.
A colloquial use can still be incorrect, irregardless of how common it is (and yes, I'm being ironical in my use of irregardless).
The fact @auk made that mistake twice is certainly telling.
Literally now means figuratively as well, according to dictionaries. It’s literally insane.
Yeah, but it's just Websters that acknowledges the use of literally to mean, "virtually," or, "figuratively," and they've gotten so much shit for that they wrote 3 paragraphs after the definition and a whole separate article trying to justify it. It's completely unjustifiable; their definition actually says, "a statement or description that is not literally true." Normally you never want to define a word with the word itself, much less define it as the the opposite of the word itself, but that's what happens when you try to turn an antonym into a synonym.
The purpose of dictionaries is to reflect how the public uses a word. It would be correct of a dictionary to include this definition because it’s literally how the public uses the word literally. It must be frustrating when a definition changes, but it’s not like the dictionary has any actual authority outside of scrabble.
The purpose of a dictionary is also to provide clear definitions so that words have universal meanings. There's a difference between adding a second definition to a word to reflect common slang, like adding the drug-related meaning to tweak, and accepting the misinterpretation of a word as correct, like irregardless. There's a reason other reputable dictionaries like Oxford didn't adopt the use of Literally to mean, "virtually," (and it's a little embarrassing that the American-English dictionary did).
no cap?
Sorry, don't follow. You mean like, "no lie?"
Well, what does the dictionary say? isn’t that the purpose of it? (to find meaning in modern language)
I don't see it on dictionary.com or Websters. I don't see any problem with adding it as an alternate slang definition, but I feel like it's gonna fall out of fashion before it gets used widely enough to justify adding it to a dictionary. I also don't see how it relates to what I'm saying, since (as far as I know) it's use doesn't come from people not know what, "cap," means.
It relates to what I’m saying about language and dictionaries. I’ve mentioned this before but maybe not to you - dictionaries aren’t an authority on language, unless you’re playing a board game like scrabble. What was incorrect years ago (e.g., using the word “literally” to mean “figuratively”) is now correct in the dictionary, because the people using the language have evolved the language.
no cap.
And that’s the thing about slang, it will eventually become part of language enough that it will be added to dictionaries. Dictionaries not keeping up with this aren’t doing their job and they’ll fall out of fashion. To my knowledge, all major dictionaries do this (follow language used in society and define what it means in the dictionary).
The “no cap” example is one that relates to what i’m trying to say about dictionaries. Sadly, I can’t find a good definition of “cap” in the context of “cap / no cap” so the dictionaries need to catch up to this, and that’s a problem, because we otherwise don’t know what these words mean. From my understanding, cap means “to lie” as in to not tell a truth, so “no cap” would mean “no lie” and “no cap?” would mean “you’re not lying right?”. Urban dictionary, for all the shit it gets, does a pretty good job of keeping up with this. Websters is probably the best real dictionary that’s going to be likely to have useful defintions of words.
From what I hear, it sounds like oxford is going to stagnate, likely not adding new words very often, even as new words are made. If I want to get information on current events, I’m not going to haul out encyclopedia britanica, I’m going to start with wikipedia and go from there. Etc..
Now, perhaps Oxford will be always representitive to the queen’s / king’s english, but since no one (at least in america) speaks that, I doubt it will have much relevance unless they get with the times.
I mean, it's weird that you keep trying convince me that dictionaries aren't the authority on language, but also incorrectly using, "literally," is acceptable now because it's in a dictionary. It's literally the first thing you said to me, and it directly contradicts what you're saying now.
There's nothing wrong with adding slang to a dictionary, but slang comes and goes quickly, so it's not the best idea to clutter up a language repository with meanings that will be obsolete in less than a decade. Remember that summer kids were saying, "on fleek?" Turns out we didn't need to bother adding, "on fleek," to our dictionaries.
You mentioned Urban Dictionary, "getting shit," but as a slang dictionary, it's not bad. Slang dictionaries are nothing new, and they're very helpful for keeping up with the kind of language changes that you're talking about. Regional vernacular and fad words belong in a slang dictionary; only slang that has proven to stick around, like, "cool," "kid," or "chill," should make their way into a regular dictionary.
Merriam-Websters makes a lot of additions that just shouldn't be in a regular dictionary, and seem like they're made only to get attention. They added, "Bootylicous," in 2004. Nobody says bootylicous anymore. Nobody said it in 2004, that word peaked in 2002 at the latest. But they got a lot of attention that year for adding that word, just like they got a lot of attention last year for adding the incorrect usage of, "literally."
Definitions matter. They're supposed to change over time, but they're also supposed to be rigid enough that people can reference their correct/incorrect meaning. If definitions were meant to be entirely fluid, we wouldn't need dictionaries in the first place. I know you think most people only use dictionaries when they're playing board games, but the truth is they are mostly used in academia, where people need to make sure they're using words properly. That's why adding a common misuse of a word to a dictionary is such a bad idea.
I think the thing you might be missing here is that I’m not sharing my opinions, I’m just stating fact. The purpose of the dictionary is to reflect the language humans use, not (as you believe) to be the authority on what words are correct or not.
I’ll give you an unbaised example: https://www.google.com/search?q=how+are+words+decided+to+be+placed+in+a+dictionary
Go ahead and select any of those links. Go to multiple pages if you like, skip over the merriam webster and dictionary.com entries if you wish. You’ll find one thing in common:
So rather than erase the work of lexicographers, let’s acknowledge the work they do that goes into building a dictionary.
Oxford also uses slang
But pretty poorly. Where I live, fizzy sugary drinks, known in some places as “soda” or “sodapop” is just called “pop”. This is what everyone calls it, as sort of a regional dialect. And yet, this definition is lacking for Oxford (but Kleenex, a brand name product exists?) https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=pop
Since people will also look backwards in history, it’s helpful to know what words were popular then, too. In fact, in the oxford dictionary there are some very old definitions that are no longer used in everyday language. “Bootylicious” and “on fleek” have their places in the dictionary as well. What doesn’t have its place are the made up words I just now created in my head and only plan on telling a few people.
OMFG dude, I know how words are added to the dictionary. I was a English Lit major and a writing tutor. I understand that lexicongraphers believe that their job is simply recording uses, and not creating meanings. I also know that there's an inherent contradiction in that, since they are also creating a repository that others will use to find the meaning of words, so they're creating and influencing that meaning for everyone who uses that repository. Again, the first thing you said to me was that it was OK to use, "literally," as, "figuratively," because it's in the dictionary. You yourself allowed the dictionary authors to change your usage of that word.
I have explained twice now that I think dictionaries do and should include slant meanings. I have also explained the difference between a regular dictionary and slang dictionary like Urban Dictionary or DARE. I never said slang terms shouldn't be in the dictionary, just that every slang usage doesn't have to be recorded in every dictionary. Sorry Oxford didn't have your use of, "Pop," in it, but it's actually kind of understandable that a British dictionary didn't bother to add the Midwestern-American slang for a word that already had 21 entries.
Well, sorry for explaining something you already knew. Legitimately my only point I was trying to argue was one I guess you already understood. Uptil this point I wasn’t positive you understood that simple concept. I say this because you appeared to tout certain definitions as incorrect, not because they were in a dictionary but because they weren’t in one particular dictionary. I thought that was super strange because dictionaries don’t drive language and dictionaries aren’t hierarchal in nature - it’s not like the gram or some other standard.
I guess I disagree on the inflencing bit, except for folks who go around the internet saying it’s “incorrect” to use language in a way that the the public uses it. It was incorrect, it’s now correct, and I wouldn’t say that’s the dictionary’s doing but the people’s doing. I imagine many lexicongraphers had a difficult time resigning to the fact that the needed to update the defintion of “literally”.
But that’s something I guess you may not have gotten from this conversation - I don’t really care about the correctness of the words. if u cn undrstnd me tht gud enuf. I mean, I promise not to write like that often but I also really don’t care to define “what is correct” outside of “how the public uses it”.
And it’s not, no cap. fr. it’s redonkulously incomplete with wicked vernacular, brah.
I don’t really care, but it sounded like you were touting the Oxford dictionary as correct where the merriam webster dictionary was incorrect. That was my issue really. It sounded like a weird elitism that I at least wanted to understand, if not explain the insignificance of.
But yeah, if you grasp that concept, there’s nothing for me to argue.
You must also hate the words sanction or dust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contronym
Yeah, but there's a difference between a word that had contradictory meanings for generations and one dictionary changing it's definition to reflect misuse.