Table can mean “to discuss a topic at a meeting” (British English) or “to postpone discussion of a topic” (American English). Canadian English uses both meanings of the word
Canada . . . seriously? I can’t sanction that type of behaviour.
That’s the problem with being influenced by both British and American English. We have both senses in New Zealand English too, although I think the US one is slowly winning out and the British one might one day fall out of use.
Someone steps out into unexpectedly cold weather and says, “It’s freezing out here.” But it’s not below freezing.
Someone that hasn’t eaten all day takes a bite and says, “I was starving, this is the best burger I’ve ever tasted!” They weren’t really starving, and they probably didn’t just rank every burger they’ve eaten.
We exaggerate and/or use words incorrectly for the effect so often, people are constantly using words “incorrectly” but then they say, “I’m literally dead right now.” and dictionaries change their definitions and people point out semantics. It’s like literally is figuratively magic.
It’s almost like language is radically democratic and words only mean what we largely agree they mean, with fluctuating cases based on particular contexts.
No, it’s just another example that words’ usages and meanings can change a lot, even flip, over time. A new usage can literally spread like a virus meme and become the meaning - at least to all intensive porpoises.
You cannot be “freezing” unless you are a bloodsicle. This follows from the exact definition of the word. Words have meanings, you know. If people can just say whatever they want, then what is the point of communication?
The correct definition is the opposite of figuratively. This has been an ongoing linguistic war for nearly a century, and your WRONG thoughts on how it should be used only serve to further the enemies cause.
People who get het up about “literally” are fabulous.
If Dickens, Twain and Joyce can use it as an intensifier, then that’s awesome enough for me.
Of course literally is often overused figuratively, flogged like a dead metaphorse; but used literally, literally is often literally redundant anyway.
I think it’s got a third use now though, which is even more fun, using it to troll languague purists who think language drives communication rather than the other way round. That might well have motivated Mark Twain too.
Literal is the exact opposite of figurative…
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/figurative
Sanction is the exact opposite of sanction, but you never see people moan about that for some reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contronym
Canada . . . seriously? I can’t sanction that type of behaviour.
That’s the problem with being influenced by both British and American English. We have both senses in New Zealand English too, although I think the US one is slowly winning out and the British one might one day fall out of use.
I wonder, why is ‘literally’ so special?
Someone steps out into unexpectedly cold weather and says, “It’s freezing out here.” But it’s not below freezing.
Someone that hasn’t eaten all day takes a bite and says, “I was starving, this is the best burger I’ve ever tasted!” They weren’t really starving, and they probably didn’t just rank every burger they’ve eaten.
We exaggerate and/or use words incorrectly for the effect so often, people are constantly using words “incorrectly” but then they say, “I’m literally dead right now.” and dictionaries change their definitions and people point out semantics. It’s like literally is figuratively magic.
Yeah, somehow “literally” is the only word in a figure of speech that cannot be part of the figure at all! They are so smart for pointing that out
It’s almost like language is radically democratic and words only mean what we largely agree they mean, with fluctuating cases based on particular contexts.
“Freezing” is an exaggeration of “cold”, just like “starving” is an exaggeration of “hungry”. It’s “a lot of X”.
“Literally” is not an exaggeration, it’s the opposite of “figuratively”. It’s “-X”.
Those are two entirely different things. But of course inflammable means flammable.
And “terrific” and “awesome” are exaggerations of “scary”.
Yes. Am I meant to add anything here?
No, it’s just another example that words’ usages and meanings can change a lot, even flip, over time. A new usage can literally spread like a
virusI know, it’s completely normal. Doesn’t mean I have to like a particular usage.
Incorrect.
Freezing
“Freezing is a phase transition in which a liquid turns into a solid when its temperature is lowered below its freezing point.”
Starvation
“Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy intake, below the level needed to maintain an organism’s life.”
You are literally wrong, and I will accept a 1-page apology written in MLA format before the end of this week.
I honestly do not see the contradiction. “Very cold” -> liquid turns to solid. “Very hungry” -> severe deficiency.
Then how do you explain iron, which freezes below 2,800 Fahrenheit, hm? 2,800 Fahrenheit is hot.
“Very” and “a lot” are subjective.
You cannot be “freezing” unless you are a bloodsicle. This follows from the exact definition of the word. Words have meanings, you know. If people can just say whatever they want, then what is the point of communication?
What part of that definition implies “bloodsicle”?
Not to mention how is that an answer to what I said?
Correct, it’s an “intensifier”
Literally literally means figuratively.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally
That’s one of it’s senses, yes, but how many of those definitions are the opposite of figurative?
The correct definition is the opposite of figuratively. This has been an ongoing linguistic war for nearly a century, and your WRONG thoughts on how it should be used only serve to further the enemies cause.
So after over a century of people using it that way some other people got a stick up their butt about it, cool. Doesn’t make it wrong.
People who get het up about “literally” are fabulous.
If Dickens, Twain and Joyce can use it as an intensifier, then that’s awesome enough for me.
Of course literally is often overused figuratively, flogged like a dead metaphorse; but used literally, literally is often literally redundant anyway.
I think it’s got a third use now though, which is even more fun, using it to troll languague purists who think language drives communication rather than the other way round. That might well have motivated Mark Twain too.
Napoleon! Enemy anti-literalists have infiltrated another thread—we need reinforcements now!