| ▲ | gwd 6 days ago |
| > I remember that there is truly no correct way to say something Weirdly, that's not what this says. It specifically says you can't say this: > * John will both try and kill mosquitos. or > * I tried and finished the assignment or > * Try always and tell the truth What I'd say instead is: If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. What you were taught is the "prescribed grammar" or "prestige grammar". Also, grammar is voted on by speakers of a language. I'm generally against making fun of people for deviating from the prestige grammar; but I will "vote against" using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as I can. |
|
| ▲ | umanwizard 6 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Nobody has ever used “literally” to mean “figuratively”. That’s a common misconception and/or a strawman from people who want to stick to the original meaning of “literally”. If that were the meaning, you would be able to say things like “I stubbed my toe and it hurts so bad I’m figuratively dying”, mirroring the colloquial meaning of “literally”. But nobody says this. The actual new and non-traditional meaning of “literally” is as a generic intensifier, see e.g. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally Oh, and by the way, the “traditional” meaning isn’t even the first one. According to my OED second edition, “literal” meaning “Of a translation, version, transcript, etc.: Representing the very words of the original; verbally exact.” is only attested since 1599. The actual original meaning of “literal”: “of or pertaining to letters of the alphabet; of the nature of letters, alphabetical” is attested since 1475. |
| |
| ▲ | card_zero 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But your link gives two senses, and it's the second one that applies here: "Used as an intensifier with statements or terms that are in fact meant figuratively and not word for word as stated". And Wiktionary offers the synonyms virtually and so to speak. "it hurts so bad I’m intensely dying" would be wrong too. It's more than an intensifier, it also means "figuratively". | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's more than an intensifier, it also means "figuratively". No, its an intensifier for things which are contextually unambiguously figurative. It doesn't communicate that the use is figurative, it communicates intensity. The figurative nature of the expression is understood from context, not the use of the word "literally". | |
| ▲ | umanwizard 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Used as an intensifier with statements or terms that are in fact meant figuratively and not word for word as stated That is not the same as the meaning of “figuratively”! “‘Literally’ is used with statements that are meant figuratively” does not mean the same thing as “‘Literally’ means ‘figuratively’”. > "it hurts so bad I’m intensely dying" would be wrong too Indeed, because “intensely” is not an intensifier. In your example, “intensely” modifies “dying”, whereas “literally” modifies the tone of your utterance. For an example of another intensifier: “it hurts so bad I’m fucking dying” would work. Nobody would claim that “fucking” means the same thing as “figuratively” in this sentence, even though the sentence is itself figurative. |
| |
| ▲ | gwd 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The actual new and non-traditional meaning of “literally” is as a generic intensifier "Literally" is used as an intensifier in two situations: 1. When speaking neither figuratively nor hyperbolically -- i.e., when the thing you're saying is... er, literally true. (e.g., "The beach is literally a five-minute walk from my house"; "You literally fold the cravat like this") 2. When speaking either figuratively or hyperbolically (e.g., "My head literally exploded"; "The island was literally catapulted into the 21st century") I have no problem with the first; I do it myself. It's the second I object to. Why? The hint is in #1 -- right now, literally is the only word we have to say that this actually really happened, that what's being said is neither figurative nor hyperbolic. That is, the first is not a generic intensifier. It intensifies it because it's actually true. Loads of other words that used to perform the same function have become meaningless intensifiers: "really" (from "real"), "very" (from "verily" -> "in truth"), "truly". I think language should be practical. Double negatives are perfectly understandable and feel to me more poetic (if less logically expressive). Using "they" for a single person of unspecified gender is a practical and long-standing solution to a real problem. "Megabyte" is a lot easier to say than "mebibyte". And, we need a word to mean "I'm not speaking figuratively or hyperbolically"; we don't need Yet Another Meaningless Intensifier. We have "literally", let's keep it. | |
| ▲ | antonvs 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The actual original meaning of “literal”: “of or pertaining to letters of the alphabet; of the nature of letters, alphabetical” is attested since 1475. That meaning comes from the Latin "littera"/"litera", meaning letter or character. Words like "transliteration" are based on this root meaning (https://www.etymonline.com/word/transliteration) Here's the page for "literal": https://www.etymonline.com/word/literal | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Nobody has ever used “literally” to mean “figuratively”. People do that all the damn time!!! It's one of the single most abominable practices in modern English. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | phkahler 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >> but I will "vote against" using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as I can. Can we have also declare war on using "exponentially" in place of "significantly"? |
| |
| ▲ | scoot 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Or “decimated”’to mean “practically destroyed” when it means the opposite… | |
| ▲ | Quekid5 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Interesting use of "declare war" there... :) I understand the feeling, but language is what language does. It will change and you will notice those changes if you're alive long enough :) Even prescriptivist languages (as my own native language tends to be) cannot escape. I'm bad at my own native language because I've been living elsewhere for very long... but not as bad as the Kids These Days :) | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You can participate in these changes. You can participate by resisting if you want. That's not futile, it's part of the process. | | |
| ▲ | Quekid5 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah... or I could focus my energies elsewhere... where they'd be likely to have an impact. So it goes. |
| |
| ▲ | umanwizard 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is no such thing as a “prescriptive language”. What would that mean? No living language is only used according to the rules laid down by grammar teachers. The only languages that are are dead languages like Latin with zero native speakers. | | |
| ▲ | Quekid5 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you'll find I used a slightly different word. > No living language is only used according to the rules laid down by grammar teachers. The only languages that are are dead languages like Latin with zero native speakers. Well, quite. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | strken 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. In their dialect, sure. In any given dialect, who knows? Any speaker of a dialect that isn't West Coast American has likely watched actors who live in Los Angeles try, and fail, to speak their dialect. |
| |
| ▲ | umanwizard 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Of course. Just like what I’m writing now isn’t grammatically correct Spanish or Chinese. | | |
| ▲ | strken 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, no, but I can't understand 99% of Spanish and Chinese using my knowledge of my native English dialect, so I'm not going to lecture Spanish or Chinese speakers on correct grammar. My point was that differences between dialects drive a lot of arguments about grammar. If I'm annoyed about the phrase "could care less" then that originates in my native dialect not allowing it. Not being part of the prestige grammar is secondary, as is whether the phrase makes any logical sense. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | LudwigNagasena 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. What if two non-native speakers say something and understand each other? |
| |
| ▲ | layer8 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s a pidgin. | |
| ▲ | ricardobeat 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then they’re having a useful, but not grammatically correct, conversation. | | |
| ▲ | antonvs 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It may be grammatically correct in the dialect they're using. There's plenty of mutually-intelligible English spoken outside of primarily English-speaking countries which native English speakers would consider ungrammatical, but that's only relative to their own dialect. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cgriswald 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Although it is a little odd and I'm not certain I've seen it in writing, I have definitely heard constructions like "John will both try and kill mosquitos." to mean, "John will both attempt to and succeed in kill[ing] mosquitos." "John will both try and like sushi" makes perfect sense, although there's an implied "to eat" verb separate from the "to like" verb in there that isn't present in the constructions the article is talking about. Likewise, "I tried and finished the assignment," means "I tried (to do) the assignment and I finished it." Again, maybe not in writing, but with a certain inflection on 'tried' (where in writing maybe you'd put a comma or semi-colon to indicate a pause) this is something people actually say; although they may emphasis it with "I finally tried and actually finished the assignment." (Whereas maybe previously they weren't confident they could even do it and maybe didn't try.) Included for no real reason:
"They tried and failed, all of them?"
"Oh, no." She shook her head. "They tried and died." |
| |
| ▲ | amenhotep 6 days ago | parent [-] | | These are all just different constructions that are related to "try and" only by coincidence. The fact that a different construction looks similar to a grammatically incoherent one by coincidence doesn't make the incoherent one coherent. | | |
| ▲ | mikepurvis 6 days ago | parent [-] | | I disagree. GP is laying is laying out reasonable scenarios that are a few dropped/implied words away from the otherwise incoherent ones. For my part, this one is very grating to my ears: "Try and tell the truth" Since it clearly should be "try to tell the truth" However this one, while similar in construction, doesn't actually sound nearly as bad: "Try and finish the assignment" It can be fixed the same way ("try to finish") but it also accept GP's form too, which would be "try (to work hard) and (see if you can) finish the assignment". As I say, for whatever reason this second example sounds much more reasonable to me— I think at least in part my brain is much more accepting of a word that feels dropped than one that's misused. | | |
| ▲ | csande17 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a more standard, general rule in English grammar that web searches tell me is called "delayed right constituent coordination". It lets you read sentences like "He washed and dried the clothes" as "He washed [the clothes] and dried the clothes." The same object gets applied to both verbs. I suspect that's what you're applying to these sentences. "Try and finish the assignment" makes some sense under this rule if you read it as "Try [the assignment,] and finish the assignment" -- an "assignment" is a thing that makes sense to "try". ("He tried [sushi,] and liked sushi" works for the same reason.) But "Try [the truth,] and tell the truth" doesn't work -- it doesn't make sense to interpret "trying" the truth as some separate action you're taking before you "tell" it. So probably you just don't have the article's special try-and "pseudo-coordination" rule in your dialect. | | |
| ▲ | mikepurvis 6 days ago | parent [-] | | This makes a lot of sense, and it definitely explains where other "try and" sentences work while "try and finish" doesn't at all. |
| |
| ▲ | ricardobeat 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The try and in “try and tell the truth” is a different idiom from “[try] and [x]” as two separate actions. It can almost always be replaced with “try to”. For example, in “let’s try and finish this” it does not mean trying then finishing, it is try to finish. The construction is more obvious in a phrase like “try and stop me”. This phrasing is very common in movies, it might just not be as popular in your area. | |
| ▲ | oasisbob 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Those examples seem to differ significantly because they're using "try" as an imperative. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | leeoniya 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > but I will "vote against" using the word "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as I can. https://imgur.com/QBTlxf7 |
| |
|
| ▲ | bryanrasmussen 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Try always and tell the truth I think the article is incorrect on this though, try always and tell the truth is a perfectly fine albeit slightly anachronistic usage that would mean Whatever you do you must always try (that is to say not give up), and tell the truth. One might also assume that you should tell the truth about trying always is the meaning, but at any rate it is not a phrasing that would be out of order a few hundred years ago. |
| |
| ▲ | losvedir 6 days ago | parent [-] | | That's not the point. While it's a valid sentence, as you point out, it means something different from "try and always tell the truth". In contrast "try to always tell the truth" and "try always to tell the truth" are both valid and mean the same thing. |
|
|
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What I'd say instead is: If native speakers say something, then it's grammatically correct. By your own logic, "literally" meaning "figuratively" is grammatically correct. Which just goes to show that your logic is wrong. Something can in fact be grammatically incorrect even when said by native speakers. |
|
| ▲ | ecocentrik 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dr Dre is a professional poet and a very successful one by any standard. His whole stock-in-trade was American urban colloquialisms most of which can be traced back to English rural and working class and predate the colonization of the Americas. The early development of English "prestige grammar" and word usage dates back to the court of William the Conqueror and the reintroduction of romance linguistic influence on Anglo-Saxon English that lead to the development of Middle English by the 13th Century. What you understand as English "prestige grammar" today is a moving target, consistently evolving but still full of contradictions and single-case rules. Many popular European languages today have been modified to exclude these linguistic anomalies, making them more consistent, less error prone and easier to learn. I expect the same thing will be done to the English language over the next century. |
| |
| ▲ | antonvs 6 days ago | parent [-] | | *stock-in-trade: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stock-in-trade Sorry, in this thread, I had to! > I expect the same thing will be done to the English language over the next century. This has already been happening in English, for centuries. Compare these examples given in the article to modern English: > 3) ...howe and by what certaine and generall rule I mighte trye and throughly discerne the veritie of the catholike faithe, from the falsehood of wicked heresye... (1554)
> 4) You maie (saide I) trie and bring him in, and shewe him to her. (1569) I suppose after more than 450 years, one might expect even more simplification, but it is perhaps the fate of a lingua franca to have more "backward compatibility" than less widely-used languages. | | |
| ▲ | ecocentrik 6 days ago | parent [-] | | My point was that English has been changing and in some instances those changes might have occurred to remove anomalous characteristics but English does have more old warts than most popular languages and I expect many of those will be removed as English recedes from its position of dominance over the next century. | | |
| ▲ | antonvs 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I doubt it will play out as you're imagining. Including second-language speakers, there are about 1.5 to 2 billion speakers of English today, which due to British colonialism, can be found across the globe. Previous lingua francas such as Latin and French, by comparison, had tens of millions of speakers at most during their heyday, and were less broadly geographically distributed. There are more French speakers in the world today than there were when French was dubbed the lingua franca. It's difficult to predict how English might evolve, but it's unlikely to undergo a significant global simplification. You already get significantly different dialects in different parts of the world. If anything, if English starts to lose its position as a global language, it will fragment further and pick up new dialect-specific complexities as other local languages mix with it. | | |
| ▲ | ecocentrik 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You're assuming that fragmentation will occur under the same conditions that affected Latin or French, where there was limited educational infrastructure, no formal institutions to guide the development of language, no global economic pressure for standardization and no instantaneous global communications infrastructure. The feedback loop for standardization is much shorter now, languages are continuing to evolve but that evolution reaches global awareness for synthesis and consensus very quickly. Regional accents and dialects are slowly disappearing and are no longer strongly influenced by factors of regional dominance. Could there be a reversal of this trend? Maybe, but it seems very unlikely, even with the potential for geopolitical instability from global warming, autonomous warfare, the rise of autocrats and other factors. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | aswanson 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Irregardless of this, what's your take on irregardless? |
| |
| ▲ | seanhunter 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Irregardless is fine and people who try to be pedantic about it are just mistaken. It is literally in the dictionary as an intensified form of “regardless”. | | |
| ▲ | aswanson 6 days ago | parent [-] | | That's cap. 'Ir' is usually used in the english language to denote the negative of the following property that follows it, e.g. irrespective meaning not respective. Regardless alone signals the negative assertion of the following property, so a prepending of 'ir' before it connotes a not-not, a double negative, and against the context of what is trying to be communicated. Having a problem with this abuse of language/meaning/communication is to be expected. | | |
| ▲ | seanhunter 6 days ago | parent [-] | | It’s not an abuse of language or meaning or communication. It’s a rule that you really want to be true for English but which unfortunately has exceptions. Irregardless is one of those exceptions. It’s not a word that I personally use because I don’t like it (probably for the reasons you’re articulating) but English doesn’t actually care what you or I think. Using “irregardless” as a synonym for “regardless” or “irrespective” is not incorrect. OED calls it a “nonstandard or humorous use” https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Irreg... |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dsr_ 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Although it doesn't work for mosquitos, it does work for "bandits": John will both try and kill bandits. ... meaning that John will serve as judge and executioner, if not jury. |
| |
| ▲ | madcaptenor 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm hearing "try and kill mosquitoes" with "try" meaning "eat", except it doesn't quite work because obviously John should kill the mosquitoes before he eats them. | |
| ▲ | gwd 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Here's where HN needs a "cry-laughing" emoji. :-) |
|
|
| ▲ | mjevans 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In that context, 'literally' as figuratively makes the same sense as inflammable and flammable. It's just one more errata in a language that's filled with horrible hacks from centuries of iterative development. My hill to die on would be exactly one way (NOT the funky dictionary way!) of spelling words exactly as they should be pronounced and writing them back similarly. The hill to die on part of that is they need to start with children, teach them ONLY the correct way of spelling words as use in school and stick to it. While we're at it, FFS, do metric measures conversion the same way. Cold turkey force it, and bleed in dual measures and spelling with a cutover plan that starts to make the new correct way required to be larger text by the time the grade -2 kids graduate. (So about a 14-15 year plan.) That's to give all us adults time to bash into our heads the new spellings for old words too. Why can't it be dictionary spelling? Offhand, 1) those phonetics aren't used quite like that anywhere else. 2) those phonetics are more strongly based on the other languages in Europe so the structure isn't as expected. I'd sooner force everyone to learn how to write TUNIC's shapes... though there's some coverage issues for that. Effectively I want different shapes for the chart ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabe... ) that DO NOT MATCH EXISTING ENGLISH LETTERS so that when I look at a 'new spelling' my old pronunciation programmed brain doesn't index the wrong lookup table. |
| |
| ▲ | cgriswald 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem with "one spelling the way it is said" is that (1) pronunciation varies among native speakers even within the same country or region. (So, at best, you'd have to pick a winner or just count them all as different languages with their own spellings.) (2) Pronunciation drifts over time (and I'm not sure an official spelling and pronunciation could stop it). | | |
| ▲ | umanwizard 6 days ago | parent [-] | | The other reason is that there are many countries that speak English, and the largest and most powerful one is too politically dysfunctional to ever agree on something that would be this controversial. |
| |
| ▲ | seanhunter 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not going to happen. No one’s ever going to successfully retrofit a logical system into English. English has even got two words (guarantee and warrantee) which are spelled and pronounced slightly different while meaning the same thing because they were borrowed from French separately at different times. | | | |
| ▲ | wingspar 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How would that work for wood? |
|
