EDIT: you guys have dug up some truly horrible pisstakes :D Thank you for those.

To the serious folk - relax a little. This is Mildly Infuriating, not I'm dying if this doesn't stop. As a non-native speaker I was taught a certain way to use the language. The rules were not written down by me, nor the teachers - it was done by the native folk. Peace!

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a linguist and this is the answer. The correct usage is however people use it, not how a book editor, dictionary, or your third grade teacher think it should be used.

    Example: “there’s” for both plural and singular rather than “there are” versus “there’s/there is”.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      however people use it,

      The way this is phrased, it sounds like you can’t be wrong. So I would just clarifying that if both the speaker and audience agree on the intent of the speaker, it’s correct.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is the concept of an ideolect and you can very easily argue that something is correct as long as some native speaker thinks so…

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The correct usage is however people use it

      If people use “literally” figuratively, does that mean that they’re evolving the language? Or are they just idiots?

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The language is evolving. “Literally” now means “literally” and also "very much so.

        I have worked as a book editor, and so my instinct is often to be corrective/prescriptive. The linguist side of me usually wins out, though.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Literally is now even officially a contranym. Additionally in the process of making the decision to make it a contranym, they pointed to a number of examples of famous English authors using it as in the way these “idiots” use it.

        Language evolves.

        • bitwaba@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What is the line for language evolution ?

          If I start calling dogs “cats” tomorrow, am I wrong? Or have I just taken the first steps towards making my mark on the English language?

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If I start calling dogs “cats” tomorrow, am I wrong?

            If your audience knows what you mean? No. If your audience has no idea what you mean? Yes.

            Or have I just taken the first steps towards making my mark on the English language?

            If it becomes a norm? Yes.

            But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? We were talking about literally, and how it is literally (the way you mean it) a contranym now. Using it to only mean figuratively (the way you want it to be used), especially when it had been used that way for a long time and even has a history of using is no longer “idiotic” it’s just a common usage of the term. It mildly irks me too, however, I can’t remember the last time I was actually confused by the intent of the speaker.