A hacker was once a computer enthusiast, and the media made it into a name for criminals who break into other people’s systems.
Decades ago, people started using baud when they meant BPS. Not many technical people back then, but it wasn’t possible to correct the few who made the mistake. Even one top member of the CCC (Chaos Computer Club) said it’s just “baud” now, no matter the real meaning.
(baud = symbols per second. A symbol can transport multiple bits, so a V.32 modem with 9600 bps worked at 2400 baud, 4 bits per symbol.)
GIF is an image format. Multiple frames stored in such a file can get played like a video. But today every video without sound gets called a GIF.
AI is an old term. But today most people say AI but only mean genAI.
It’s even more absurd: There are gamers who demand computer games without AI. WTF?
AI was always part of computer games. Even the early computerized board games. I remember Half-Life fans loving the enemy AI. And I think one of the games in the Wolfenstein franchise had enemies that found cover when shot at. That’s normal, old AI. Not genAI.
If AI is really lost, how do we discuss the thing that was once considered AI?
That’s literally true… Like in the literal sense… STOP WINKING AT ME!
“Literally” is used as a superlative. The “literally means figuratively” thing tends to refer exaggerations. “I’m literally dying” or “That’s literally hotter than the sun”.
It’s a stand in for “really” which has a double meaning
But yes, we never “lost” the word. Some online grammar pedants simply refused to accept it as a homonym.
Because both meanings are opposites, literally is a more specialized form of homonym called a contronym. Unlike a contronym such as clip where it’s to tell whether the speaker is talking about clipping things together or clipping stuff off of something based on their use in a sentence, literally and figuratively fit into any sentence the same way. In any case where the speaker’s words could be interpreted ambiguously to be literal or figurative and they add literally to clarify they can’t because someone could mistake their literal literally meaning to be a figurative one.
That means the literal use of literally is functionally lost, and for what? So folks have another way to exaggerate? I don’t care if a language evolves, but if it’s going to I think it should evolve in such a way that expressing certain ideas isn’t lost, especially if there isn’t anything real to be gained. I literally don’t understand why people are so gun-ho to defend using literally figuratively.
“really” -> “extremely” is not the opposite of “really” -> “factually”.
It isn’t functionally lost any more than “really” has become functionally lost. It’s contingent on context.
“It’s really hot outside” and “He’s really the murderer” have two very coherent and distinct interpretations.
In the same vein, “It’s literally as hot as the sun out here” and “This Christian extremists are taking the Bible too literally” have distinct and non-interchangeable meanings.
But the term has (ahem) LITERALLY been used as an intensifier since 1769. You’re far too late to the party on this debate. It’s LITERALLY been settled for centuries.
How can it literally be settled if people are still arguing about it? Unless you mean figuratively? Good to know people two and a half centuries ago could write poorly.
Same way people can wave a Confederate Flag 150 years after the war is over.
I didn’t realize people had been shot for not using literally figuratively. Plus one could argue that people waving the Confederate flag 150 years later means the war wasn’t fully finished, but I’m not here to debate politics.
I don’t understand why you compare “literally” to “really”. They’re two different words that are used differently. I really don’t have any problem with using really as an intensifier because it aligns just fine with using it to indicate fact. “It’s really hot outside” -> “The heat outside is real.” “He’s really the murderer” -> “His being the murderer is real.”
But using literally in your example adds absolutely nothing to the sentence. “It’s literally as hot as the sun out here” and “It’s as hot as the sun out here” convey the exact same meaning, except one has an extra word that degrades other uses of it. If your sentence could replace the word “literally” with the word “figuratively” and you would intend the same meaning, you should either use “figuratively” or nothing there at all. That way when the word literally is used there can be no doubt that you mean “in the literal sense.”
Irregardless isn’t even setting off spell checkers. “Without having lack of regard”, fucking what?
Our language is evolving into useless shit, and I despise people who do not respect language and definitions. “Oh, language is evolving!”
Yeah, velociraptors evolved into chickens: how did that shit work out? /being facetious, before someone with poor language skills happens to be a paleontologist snaps back
“Inflammable” means flammable!
It would make more sense if it was written “enflammable”, similar to French.
But both forms are acceptable… meaning in French, you can have “ininflammable”!
You’re fighting the tide. There’s never been a point in time where language had fixed, immutable definitions. It’s always been transient, no matter what you learned, and it’s not a good thing or a bad thing, it’s just how communication and culture work.
I think it’s valid to have a visceral hatred for contranyms.
I’m not saying you can’t hate them, but I am saying that all you’ll achieve by that is getting angry all the time.
I am pretty sure we came up with DEFINITIONS. Now what does that word mean?
I having been fighting a tide of idiocy my entire life, but it doesn’t mean I will drown in it.
Definitions are found, not made. ;)
Objects are found. We define objects. Then we make words. This seems so simple and people seem to want to make it complex.
Eh, I’ve been learning about linguistics and it’s changed my view on the topic.
I study linguistics, and ironically, I have no idea what you mean.
The hilarious part was I was recently dating a linguistics TA working towards her masters. The entire draw between us was linguistics.
This is so hilarious to me.
Icing on the cake, my ex-fiancé had her masters in communication.
Very interesting! Goes to show no subject of study is monolithic in belief! Well, as an unlearned person, here’s where the topic intersected with linguistics for me: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2pX2MC8vjKOeepdvCrQ07h
The podcast is Lingthusiam.
Long story short it’s back to the changing nature of definitions based on how people use the word. Hence, my saying they are found, as they can be found to have evolved. Have a great one!