Declinism via etymological fallacy is alive and well. Language-change denial & selective targeting in full force. Funny how these people never say that 'petrify' can only apply to rocks; that 'organize' should only be used of bodily organs; or that 'livid' can only mean "of a purplish color."
I like to point out that “decimate” should only be applied to Roman centurions
It's true that something else is going on with 'literally' beyond simple etymological fallacy. (Which is why 'literally' is so often the target of attacks on usage.) www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/very...
As a layman who often uses words, I'd like to note that the devotion to "literally" is that it's as if half the fire extinguishers in the world suddenly STARTED fires or were at minimum empty. "Literally" has been a protection against "figuratively" not just an antonym. Now it's a synonym?
It's vaguely as if "For All Intensive Purposes" became the national motto (a possibility) or the latest political malapropism ("he's using it as a bully puppet") were accepted as the correct quote
Keith's my favorite pundint.
Very silly and not at all nice. And he should be flattered by that, if he insists on etymology as the golden key. Oddly, not one of these etymological fetishists has ever latched onto “bulldoze.”
Only general officers can strategize.
I agree! And yet I also think part of why common usage of ‘literally’ is such a sticking point for some is that this usage departs from the original meaning and context of the word so substantially. (1/3)
This is it precisely.
And yet… not so much (@petersokolowski.bsky.social please feel free to correct me): to me, ‘literally’ has undergone the same kind of semantic bleaching as ‘very’, which has evolved from meaning ‘genuinely’ to being used as a degree adverb.
Hence, in a sentence such as ‘I literally died’, not only can ‘literally’ not be paraphrased as ‘figuratively’ (obviously), but I’m not even sure one can really claim that its use is figurative.
Granted, you wouldn’t say of something that it was ‘very X’ if it weren’t ’X’ in the first place, but as far as ‘literally’ is concerned it looks like a matter of grammaticalisation more than metaphor: the verb ‘die’ carries the metaphor / is used figuratively, not ‘literally’. What do you think?
I agree that its use seems to be more as an intensifier than any true figurative use. Yes? The etymological sense of 'literal' seems so plainly opposed is what I was replying to. People don't correct the use of 'incisive' because a knife is not involved or 'fabulous' when it's not a fable.
"Fantastic" has shifted from "rooted in fantasy" to "excellent" relatively uncommented on, and seemingly within the 20th century.
It may be less of a stretch for the pedant to imagine (and accept) a person as figuratively petrified than it is to suppose literal is meant to mean figurative— these words feel as close to dichotomous as our twisting and beautiful language allows. (2/3)
This is a curious thing, and I’ve found that engaging with this phenomena primarily with my curiosity has helped to curb some of my more pedantic and prescriptivist tendencies. Thank you for posting this! I hope my ramblings are not too unwelcome or out of place :) (3/3)
Also anything "digital" should be counted with your fingers.
I am now going to exclusively use “organize” as a threatening verb referring to removing one’s internal organs by force, in the same colloquial meaning shift as “pulverize”. “I’m gonna come over there and organize you.”
etymology supports this choice
technically only things that are NOT rocks can be petrified. pet peeve of mine in rock ID groups
