Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by quonn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

quonn

> literally lighting billions of dollars in funds on fire

Figuratively. But even that's not true, since customers have saved real money and spent it elsewhere.

View on HN

So, uber is really a secret socialist scheme to redistribute wealth from the investors to uber's customers?

I should start using Uber more often if that is true.

Heh, it's kind of funny when you look at it like that. It's the opposite of the typical fleecing scheme, wherein a publicly owned company enriches the big guys at the little guys' expense (a la Enron). Uber is doing the opposite, since it isn't publicly traded and only has large rich investors: They're saving lots of little guys' money on car fares at the expense of the few big guy investors.

For now.

Their plan, as far as I can see, is to totally dominate the market. Once, and if that happens, they will raise their prices, and once again the little guy's money will be going in the pockets of the big guys.

On a short enough timescale sure. On a longer one it is exactly the opposite: a play to redefine and own the future of automotive transportation.

Literally.

Usage #2: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Well that's.... Sad. I think I will take what little authority I (don't) have and veto that definition, seeing as it literally defeats the purpose of definition #1.

And I was invoking definition #1 there, in case that wasn't clear.

It's not quite as bad as you think, literally is usually used figuratively in "A is literally B" to indicate that while A is obviously not literally B, the outcome that A will have will be practically the same as that from B.

That's actually a pretty reasonable defense of what I've generally considered a cringe worthy usage of the word "literally".

Language changes, and as speakers of modern English, we should adapt to changes instead of tilting at that particular windmill. However, I commiserate with you over the transformation of a useful word into yet another synonym for "really".

It's essentially a contronym now.

Not unlike "egregious" [1].

[1] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/egregious

I'll just leave this right here.

http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=navigating/intro/prescriptive

"Sad" used to mean "sated". Why are you spreading the incorrect usage perpetuated by fools in the 1690s? These days nobody understands me when I use the true definition.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...

It's one thing when a word evolves. It's another thing entirely when the evolution is the opposite of the original meaning. So let's not get condescending when it's more than a simple shift in meaning, okay?

I guess it's a little different but it happens all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples

Also, "sad" and "sated" aren't quite opposites but they're very different. Are you telling me you wouldn't be annoyed if people started talking about how sad they were at the end of a great meal?

Eternal shame on merriam-webster.

A dictionary that fails to document usage is a lot worse than one that documents usage you don't like.

A good dictionary will also document widespread distaste for particular usages, though. It's a losing battle with any intensifier -- we've already lost "really" and "very" to this problem, and "literally" will pass too. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying to extend its life a little longer, though.

("Objectively" is also being used as an intensifier in casual conversation, though I think always with a touch of irony... Good fun.)

Did they add this bit today?

Should literally be used for emphasis?

Sense 2 is common and not at all new but has been frequently criticized as an illogical misuse. It is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

I wish this had never happened and I will probably use a different dictionary from now on.

That makes no sense. It's like saying that "yes" means "yes", but it could also mean "no".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yeah+right

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cleave

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sanction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples

Merrian-Webster is garbage. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=literally

Oxford supports MW [1]. And so does common usage.

[1]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/literally

yeah we may have won the battle but not the war. I have currently taken it upon me to use "figuratively" improperly and I won't stop until all language has lost meaning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com