Yes. Ling PhD here – after teaching for 10+ years, the thing most people consistently do not understand about language is: the dictionary does not define what words mean. Dictionaries at best are a representation of what words meant at one time, and those meanings change quickly and pervasively enough that there is constantly a non-zero* number of words for which the dictionary is already wrong.
*in actuality it’s probably significantly higher than what is connotated by “non-zero”
Yes, this is the excuse I use too when I mess up the pronunciation of a word and people have an issue with it. They understood the meaning so the communication was successful which is the point.
100%. If people get the point, that’s a successful transfer of information. You may have transferred more than you wanted (like the implication that you’ve never heard the word before), but you did complete the transfer.
While I don’t support language prescriptivism just for the sake of it, there should be a common understanding what words mean.
Otherwise language loses its function to accurately and effectively transport information, no?
There is, though: that’s exactly why we can communicate in the first place. The fact that one can have spoken language mastery without literacy also suggests we really don’t need to be defining words explicitly in order to use them effectively.
Similarly, I’d speculate thay the word “blog” was likely in usage for years before it showed up in a dictionary. It would have been added to that dictionary based on its existing commonality – so I don’t see how shared written word definitions really help at all, even with new coinages.
Defining words in a meaningful way (pun intended) is actually a really difficult proposition. A lot of that comes from the fact that context means a whole lot, and words may also have different meanings to different people. It can be useful in some situations to have some written definitions – e.g., legal proceedings, where word meanings need to be locked down to avoid possible ambiguities. Mostly this is done as a matter of convenience, though, and within a very specific domain.
I agree and will take it further. We don’t even need to posit a change in the meaning of the word, we need only assume that when people use the word literally, they do not mean the word “literally” literally, they mean it figuratively.
Who says you have to use the word “literally” literally? You don’t have to say the word “loudly” loudly!
As a fellow linguistics student here, completely agree. I randomly get those ‘grammar nazis’ like “doesnt that sort of stuff upset you?” like nahh man that stuff is fascinating! Don’t lump me in with you, pleaseee.
Back when I was in grade school, there were kids saying “as long as you know what I mean, it doesn’t matter”. If a word means two different/conflicting things, how can we possibly know what you mean? See also: bimonthly.
Former linguistics grad student here: The meaning of “literal” is changing, and sentences like “That guy is literally 500 years old” are correct.
Yes. Ling PhD here – after teaching for 10+ years, the thing most people consistently do not understand about language is: the dictionary does not define what words mean. Dictionaries at best are a representation of what words meant at one time, and those meanings change quickly and pervasively enough that there is constantly a non-zero* number of words for which the dictionary is already wrong.
*in actuality it’s probably significantly higher than what is connotated by “non-zero”
Yes, this is the excuse I use too when I mess up the pronunciation of a word and people have an issue with it. They understood the meaning so the communication was successful which is the point.
100%. If people get the point, that’s a successful transfer of information. You may have transferred more than you wanted (like the implication that you’ve never heard the word before), but you did complete the transfer.
deleted by creator
While I don’t support language prescriptivism just for the sake of it, there should be a common understanding what words mean.
Otherwise language loses its function to accurately and effectively transport information, no?
There is, though: that’s exactly why we can communicate in the first place. The fact that one can have spoken language mastery without literacy also suggests we really don’t need to be defining words explicitly in order to use them effectively.
Similarly, I’d speculate thay the word “blog” was likely in usage for years before it showed up in a dictionary. It would have been added to that dictionary based on its existing commonality – so I don’t see how shared written word definitions really help at all, even with new coinages.
Defining words in a meaningful way (pun intended) is actually a really difficult proposition. A lot of that comes from the fact that context means a whole lot, and words may also have different meanings to different people. It can be useful in some situations to have some written definitions – e.g., legal proceedings, where word meanings need to be locked down to avoid possible ambiguities. Mostly this is done as a matter of convenience, though, and within a very specific domain.
[Waves from the other hill] I will never accept that usage of “literal” as correct.
Sees you from a few hills away: Oh my gosh we’re literally right next to each other! 😜
I agree and will take it further. We don’t even need to posit a change in the meaning of the word, we need only assume that when people use the word literally, they do not mean the word “literally” literally, they mean it figuratively.
Who says you have to use the word “literally” literally? You don’t have to say the word “loudly” loudly!
As a fellow linguistics student here, completely agree. I randomly get those ‘grammar nazis’ like “doesnt that sort of stuff upset you?” like nahh man that stuff is fascinating! Don’t lump me in with you, pleaseee.
So, what’s the new word for what “literal” used to mean?
Deadass
Honestly, it’s also “literally”. Humans are complex lol.
Back when I was in grade school, there were kids saying “as long as you know what I mean, it doesn’t matter”. If a word means two different/conflicting things, how can we possibly know what you mean? See also: bimonthly.
@KidDogDad
@thrawn21
How, then, would somebody be able to convey that somebody is literally 500 years old?
This makes me irrationally mildly upset.
Do people actually use it that way anymore though? I haven’t heard anybody do it in a long time.
Haha good point. Come to think of it I haven’t heard it in a while, but I’m also not exactly running in circles where it would be used frequently.
Yeah, I haven’t heard anyone say it like that in literally, like, 500 years!