There used to be two spaces after a period, oxford commas, and 'literally' meant 'as it was written'. Languages change (for better or worse). Kids these days.
Some years ago I went on an editing binge on Wikipedia, finding a bunch of templates that "misused" the phrase "due to" and changed them to "because of". As we all know, you must get this right:
"The flight delay was due to bad weather."
vs.
"The flight was delayed because of bad weather."
but never:
"The flight was delayed due to bad weather."
The next day, someone reverted all my changes and asked, "Mike, have you looked at a dictionary lately?"
Oops.
In that moment I was enlightened: I realized I could care less.
I even leave out the Oxford comma as often as I use it. In fact I leave out a lot of commas I used to put in.
But there is one case where the Oxford comma is still necessary. If you leave it out of this joke it ruins it:
"There are two hard problems in computer science: naming things, cache expiration, and off by one errors."
I see what you did there. Well done.
But now that you've explained it, I see it works the other way too!
"Finally I learned to care less about these kinds of language rules."
There is something delicious about two seemingly contradictory phrases that mean the same thing, and one phrase that can mean two opposite things.
"care less : not to care — used positively and negatively with the same meaning <I could care less what happens> <I couldn't care less what happens>"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
http://www.dictionary.com/e/could-care-less/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/04/05/the_rea...
> people who say “I could care less” are omitting the first part: “Like I could care less,” [Slate link]
These quotes seem to sum up those links.
The material is very flammable or inflammable.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/flammable-or-i...
English is confusing.
A lot of other people were taught the same rule, but hopefully they've realized as I finally did that it just doesn't matter.
Here are some interesting discussions from both sides of the fence:
https://www.google.com/search?q=due+to+because+of
Joseph Emonds argued in the paper "Grammatically Deviant Prestige Constructions" that the underlying reason for some of these arbitrary distinctions was as a social class signifier: if you used "correct" grammar it helped indicate to others that you were a member of a more prestigious class:
Literally has been used to mean figuratively for well over 100 years. (If I wasn't on my phone I'd paste in a list of usages from famous literature going back 150 years or so, that I have stored on my computer)
That's one of the big issues with prescriptivism—often the person making or enforcing the prescriptions has no idea of what the truth actually is. Especially in language, but it crops up in software as well.
I'm simply of the opinion that language that leads to misunderstanding is bad. That's why I correct anyone who I suspect to use the word "literally" for the opposite of its meaning, and why I use Oxford commas.
I also like when the meaning of a sentence is inferable by only knowing the words and simple grammar rules. That's why I hate "could of" or "I could care less".
I will also roll my eyes if you ask me to use double spaces after a period. That rule was born from a technical limitation that's long gone.
In essence I think that conserving ancient rules and meanings is just one branch of prescriptivism, and it's unfair to judge everything prescriptivist based on that one radical branch.
See also: enormity.
We really do need to take some care here or else we'll soon be spelling "lose" as "loose." Although that particular issue is probably coming from non-native speakers, it's being picked up and used by others and may eventually become accepted. That will not ease our ability to communicate.
i don't think i can agree here, at least not with the gist. in a sense, words already don't have 'real meaning' (they're just noises or scribbles depending on the medium), their meaning or communicative value is bestowed by their actual use in a specific language, place, time, etc.
if you mean to say that we can't communicate the non-figurative sense of 'literally', consider: when someone whines 'you mean figuratively, not literally', this necessarily implies that the complainer understood what was said. if they can comprehend this distinction, it would seem utility remains and the complaint is informed mostly by a resistance to change (imo).
> We really do need to take some care here or else we'll soon be spelling "lose" as "loose."
this seems like a separate issue. the words 'lose' and 'loose' are not being used interchangeably (afaik); my sense of it is that it's just an issue of transcription because the spelling is extremely similar.
I agreed that the word "literally" can be used figuratively, but this use needs to be obvious- kind of like pronouns. I personally prefer to avoid that use because I am not a particularly talented wordsmith.
Perhaps, but what I'm arguing is something slightly different: that the idea "literally used to only mean literally but recently it started being used to mean figuratively" is a myth.
Wait, maybe that's a good thing: "loose" (v): to free from restraint, to make less rigid, tight, or strict. (M-W)
Here's an odd one for you. Many of my younger friends say "on accident" instead of "by accident", e.g. "He didn't mean to do that. It was on accident."
It bugs me to no end; it just seems wrong.
But it's surprisingly logical: after all, we say "on purpose", so why not "on accident" for the opposite?
I don't think I will start saying or writing it that way, though!