Call me old fashioned, but I think it's important to know what words actually mean, and to use the words that mean what you actually intend to convey. To quote Tom Stoppard, "If there is any point to using language at all is that a word is taken to stand for a particular fact or idea and not for other facts or ideas." (If you're not familiar with that quote, it worth looking it up and reading it in context.)
When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a
scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean
—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice,
“whether you can make words mean so many different
things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which
is to be master—that’s all.”
-- LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.
Yes I think what corrupts this ideal is the extent to which words come to represent feelings and associations instead of facts and ideas.
Like how "literally" has come to represent the feeling of emphasis, and the association with the experience of one-upping other emphatic adjectives like "extremely."
Actually not. If you google the debate you'll find there's a history of using the word this way that goes back a very, very, long time in a variety of literature.
I have to admit I thought the same as you until someone pointed this out.
I find it weird that this fight is only over "literally" (which doesn't actually literally mean non-metaphorically, but rather "to do with letters") but not "really", "truly" and "actually" and other such words which do literally mean "this is true and real".
Yes, it does. There is no "right" in language use beyond communication with the target audience. What people understand a word to mean is all there is.
That is a very counter-productive and shallow view of language. Language is always changing — semantics are no exception. Words don't mean the same today as they did 100 years ago, and even then they didn't mean the same as they did 200 years ago, and even then... You get the drift...
It's arrogant to think that the language that we're speaking right now is the pinnacle of linguistic evolution and that it's only downhill from here.
Clearly we aren't at the pinnacle of linguistic evolution. Ancient Greek and Latin were far more evolved than modern Indo-European languages. Indo-European languages have been going downhill for the past 2000 years or so ;-)
All this is true. Nonetheless, if you go too far towards the other extreme and apply Humpty-Dumpty's theory of language ("When I say a word it means exactly what I want it to mean") you won't be able to communicate at all.
I hear that argument a lot, but I rarely see a case where someone notes "wrong" usage — like you did — where there's actually any ambiguity. Like when people complain about "literally" being used as an intensifier. I doubt they're confused if the speaker e.g. actually died of embarrassment or if they're just using it as an intensifier.
Language has so much redundancy that a slightly different understanding of a single word in a sentence rarely is of any consequence.
Again, everything you say is is true (which, BTW, is why I prefaced my comment with "Just FYI..."). But the sarcasm/ironic-humor confusion is very prevalent even among native speakers, and in a different set of circumstances it could cause confusion or worse because the implied stance of sarcasm is the exact opposite of ironic humor. Also, HN is a public forum, and comments are read not only by their respondees but by lurkers as well, some of whom may not be native speakers and who might therefore appreciate having some of the subtleties of the language pointed out to them.
I hear you, but does Stoppard's affinity for style and precision relate to off-topic pedantry? I'm not trying to diminish the importance of correctness. I actually do share your appreciation for these things. Maybe we can make a distinction between literature and singling out one person publicly.
Btw, Stoppard also said "I was always looking for the entertainer in myself ... [but] it's really about human beings".
> Call me old fashioned, but I think it's important to know what words actually mean [...] To quote Thomas Stoppard
It's also important, when pretentiously namedropping a writer and bragging about how you actually read them (all to win a pointless internet argument about a throwaway 'sarcasm' tag) to actually know that writer's name.
This isn't an argument. If I used a word to mean the opposite of what it actually means I'd want someone to point it out. Just like if I get an author's name wrong I'd want someone to point it out. (Thanks for pointing it out.)
He didn't use "sarcasm" to mean the opposite of what it actually means.
Because his post could be read as sincere (unjustified) criticism of Google, he used the well-known internet convention of "/sarcasm" to avoid an unnecessary, off-topic sub-thread stemming from his post. How's that for irony.
