News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “figuratively”. Parent comment

Re:According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “... by kupaka on Friday August 23, 2013 @10:01AM (#6263636)
>While it's nobody's fault, it makes English poorer. There are already lots of general-purpose intensifiers. English doesn't particularly need another one.

I'm more than a little bothered by this line of reasoning. Spoken languages aren't like programming languages, where having many ways to express the same thing can be seen as a detriment. Having more ways for one to express oneself can only make the language richer.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “... by gabemart on Friday August 23, 2013 @11:23AM (#6264152)
In a vacuum, having another intensifier is a good thing even if it's very similar to existing intensifiers. My point was that getting another marginally useful intensifier at the expensive of a very useful clarifier makes the language less net poorer.

In other words, "literally" meaning "figuratively" means it can no longer be unambiguously used to mean "not figuratively". The latter function is more useful than the former because there are lots of existing words for the former and only a few for the latter.

[ Parent | on HN ]