When people mis-use literally it bugs me, Anyone else?

  • Thread starter Thread starter maverick_starstrider
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the misuse of the word "literally," particularly when it is used to express hyperbole rather than its actual meaning. Participants express frustration over this trend, noting that it reflects a misunderstanding of language and logic. The conversation expands to other language pet peeves, including the use of "like" as a filler, which some argue serves to soften statements rather than detract from them. There is a debate about whether language is arbitrary or structured, with some asserting that while vocabulary can evolve, the fundamental rules of language must remain to ensure mutual understanding. The fluidity of language and its cultural reflections are acknowledged, with participants recognizing that changes in usage do not necessarily equate to degradation. Overall, the thread highlights concerns about clarity and precision in language amid evolving usage patterns.
  • #101


maverick_starstrider said:
*shrug*, inflammable means the same things as flammable, despoiled means the same things as spoiled. Give it a few years, regardless will be in common usage and it will be partially because of me *mwahahahahaha*

disenfranchised
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102


TheStatutoryApe said:
disenfranchised

What's wrong with disenfranchise? To take away something that was enfranchised.
 
  • #103


maverick_starstrider said:
*shrug*, inflammable means the same things as flammable

They do, however, the "in-" prefix does not mean "not" in this case:

USAGE NOTE Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. However, the presence of the prefix in– has misled many people into assuming that inflammable means “not flammable” or “noncombustible.” The prefix –in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative prefix –in, which is related to the English –un and appears in such words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this –in is an intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give warnings.

http://www.answers.com/topic/flammable

There is a similar etymology at work with "despoil" since the "de-" prefix is not the more familiar one, but rather one meaning "from" similar to the modern Spanish de which means "of" or "from."

"Irregardless," however, is just nonstandard usage.
 
  • #104


maverick_starstrider said:
What's wrong with disenfranchise? To take away something that was enfranchised.

Unnescessarily compunded prefixes

Franchise

Enfranchise

Disfranchise

Disenfranchise

though it is in common usage now.
 
  • #105


In a previous thread, I had mentioned the use of ultimate to mean great:

That was the ultimate dinner, Mom.

Let me add the use of incredible to mean great:

I believe in Intelligent Design because it is such an incredible theory.
 
Last edited:
  • #106


Haven't read this thread, but how 'bout flammable vs inflammable?
 
  • #107


russ_watters said:
Haven't read this thread, but how 'bout flammable vs inflammable?

Post #103.
 
  • #108


I suppose if I was less lazy, I could have at least read the last page of the thread i was posting too... [shrug]
 
  • #109


Now, that's a level of laziness I can merely aspire to. :biggrin:
 
  • #110


russ_watters said:
Haven't read this thread, but how 'bout flammable vs inflammable?

Remember George Carlin's routine about that? Not an exact quote following, but close.
"Flammable, inflammable, non-inflammable. What the hell? Either the thing flamms or it doesn't flamm. Make up your mind."
 
  • #111


Danger said:
Remember George Carlin's routine about that? Not an exact quote following, but close.
"Flammable, inflammable, non-inflammable. What the hell? Either the thing flamms or it doesn't flamm. Make up your mind."

Carlin was genius! Didn't he also point out that when an alarm goes off, it goes on :confused:?
 
  • #112


I believe so. He also pointed out that your own farts smell okay. The only one of his albums that I own is 'Toledo Window Box', but I sure wouldn't mind picking up a few more.
 
  • #113


"A Place For My Stuff" had me in stitches the first time I listened to it. I had it on cassette tape and listened to it on a continuous loop while travelling.
 
  • #114


GeorginaS said:
"A Place For My Stuff" had me in stitches the first time I listened to it. I had it on cassette tape and listened to it on a continuous loop while travelling.

Oh, yeah. I remember a snippet of that from his stand-up routine. Your **** is 'stuff', and other people's stuff is '****'. I readily admit to having a vast collection of both.
 
  • #115


George Carlin? You mean there are others here as old as I? Well, I guess you don't have to be old. I loved George Carlin in the 70's and went to a concert in Portland back then with a girl friend. Unfortunately, he was nearly incoherent. That was in his incoherent days. It was pretty embarrassing. I forgave him, though. I guess I've been incoherent a few times myself...
 
  • #116


seerongo said:
You mean there are others here as old as I?
Are you kidding? I'm older than dirt, and am a mere child compared to Turbo and Integral. Hypatia and Astro are about my age, give or take a few months, and the incredibly gorgeous Evo is a couple of years ahead of me. Ivan always pretended to be older than me, but I found out that he's actually younger. There are a lot here, mostly gold members, who are in the same age range.
Put it this way, we have pre-teens, great-grandparents, and everything in between.
 
  • #117
  • #118


While that link was a very interesting read, it still points out that the general usage is improper. The only difference is that the writer seems willing to accept that improperness under some circumstances.
 
Back
Top