Asklemmy

55632 readers

211 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

What spelling, grammar or semantics rules have been lost in your lifetime? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Dagobah@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

126 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Language is always changing. At one point 'an apron' was 'a napron' while words like 'literally' are no longer literally literal. What are some language battles that have been lost in living memory and what are some others you predict will soon occur?

Edit: Non-english examples very welcome!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RavuAlHemio@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

From my perspective, literally being used for emphasis does not actually change its meaning, it’s simply hyperbole.

If you complain that you’ve been “waiting for hours”, even though it’s been 45 minutes, that doesn’t change the meaning of “hours”, you’re just exaggerating.

Hyperbole is a stylistic element; style is a completely different level of language than grammar/spelling/semantics (word meanings). As another example of style, ending a sentence with a preposition is grammatically correct but stylistically not recommended.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The OED actually includes the definition of literally as being what used to be the opposite of its definition nowadays, so I think that it does count as an auto-antonym (a word that means both itself, and the opposite of itself)

[–] _deleted_@aussie.zone 11 points 1 day ago

“I’ve told you a million times, don’t exaggerate”

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I agree, but there was a period in the '00s, or maybe early '10s, where the meaning was changing because you only ever saw it mean "figuratively", to the point where dictionaries included both meanings. I think it's settled back to its original meaning now though.