I am surprised that the Nile is only at 105th, far below even the Danube and the Volga. It holds such prominence in Western history that I naively expected it to be in the top 5.
The Yellow River -- which, for its part, is quite literally the cradle of Chinese civilization -- is in a very similar position. It's the 6th largest river by length, but 113th by flow rate.
Perhaps, as others have just speculated, flow rate was once a lot higher, and now water is being diverted to agricultural and other projects, so that a much smaller fraction of it reaches the sea.
"Can literally mean figuratively?
One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal").
Is the extended use of literally new?
The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others.
Is the extended use of literally slang?
Among the meanings of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally)
Those language-control bodies that some countries have are somewhat a relic of before we had our current understanding of the mechanics of language use and how languages change over time. They can also be understood as a leftover tool from the european bootstrapping-nationstates era.
Either way, those bodies may (but it's debatable) have some influence on the rate the language change, or what specific changes occur. But nowhere near as much as they purport to, maybe close to none at all.
Even in the bible, we can see Jesus starting a lot of stories with "truly, truly I say unto you..." followed by a parable.
English is not Latin. It was born deteriorated.
[0] OED Online
[1] David Foster Wallace, Tense Present, available at https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-...
And one use, 6 years ago, where you did die on that hill, when you wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738257
> It literally kills me how performant and impactful your code is to the many unique users that comprise the community. :-)
> Seriously, though, the original ...
If you're already dead then you can stop dying. :-)
I don't really care to weigh in on the rest of this spat, but this isn't a contradiction: it is the case that a given sense of a word, listed in a dictionary, may yet be metaphorical—it is not the case that finding a definition of a word in a dictionary proves that that sense isn't metaphorical, and in fact, any common metaphorical usage of a word is quite likely to end up in a dictionary, at which point it does not (necessarily!) stop being metaphorical. (I find the rest of the post basically sound, for all the nothing my judgement on that is worth—this part is just not strong, is all)
Personally I wouldn’t call usages that are so widely used and understood that they’re in every dictionary “figurative.”
One can't play fast and loose with how language works. Almost all words got their meaning through metaphor as society become more abstract and complex. Just because one doesn't like something doesn't make it less valid.
I get that cradle started out meaning "basket" (like definire started out meaning drawing boundaries), but now it literally also means the place where a civilizations started (like define literally means to describe a word).
Are you denying that process happens? Can words never expand in definition? What about computer terms like type? Can a person never literally type on a computer in any context ever?
Or should I just give up because this is a personal neurological thing that we will just disagree on forever due to differences in how we process inputs about the world?
The difference between "literal" and "figurative"/"metaphorical" is whether a term is being used as a first-order label for a thing in itself, or as a reference to another concept. That is, a figurative use of a term applies meaning by drawing on a distinct source of meaning.
Words (or idiomatic phrases) can become literal when their usage becomes so strongly identified with what they label that their meaning is no longer determined by reference. "Turn on" no longer involves turning, for example.
I agree that "definition" has become literal, because we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself.
I do not believe this is the case when someone calls the Yellow River the cradle of Chinese civilization. I believe that people hearing that term primarily understand "cradle" by reference to the baby-related object, rather than because the word has meaning in itself relating to the start of civilization. As evidence of this, I think attaching "of Chinese civilization" is doing meaningful work, and that most people would be thrown off by the abstract phrase "cradles around the world" or even by the more specific phrase "the Yellow River, China's cradle." They may still understand the speaker's meaning, but they would do so by connecting the metaphorical dots, not because "cradle" has become a literalism.
Let's bring this back to typing because I think it really helps. Typos from Greek refers to a physical mark or impression made by a stamp (not inherently letters, any physical impression). We then used that etymology to come up with 'type' to represent the blocks that deposited ink onto paper . Kind of a stretch, but I would still consider that a first order label in your framework. Great we are aligned.
But wait, I'm typing this comment and there's no physical impressions being made on paper. Am I not literally typing?
>we no longer refer to the concept of boundaries each time we encounter the term. So too with "cradle": we imagine a particular object that isn't a basket, in itself.
Sure, I'm not imagining a printing press, but whether or not I know it, I am making a metaphor to it. So if we stopped using the term 'cradle' to refer to a basket (therefore breaking the metaphor), then cradle becomes literal? Seems like a fragile/not useful distinction to me.
What about my last paragraph? Do you deny that there's a two-step process going on, or do you actually see the phrase "Chinese cradle" and interpret it to mean "birthplace of civilization" rather than first assuming it means a baby-related object produced in China?
Of course it's weak. This is all pedantry. But then again, "literal" now means both "literal" and "not literal" so maybe all linguistic distinctions are fragile. Less useful once they're destroyed, though—it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal."
I didn't want to get off topic, but I speculate the most common usage of 'cradle' in American English is 'Cradle to Grave.' I didn't bring it up, since it torpedoes your argument (Cradle is used to mean infancy in this case, not a physical item), but it feels too nuanced to be a general argument.
>it would be nice if we had a word that meant "literal" without also meaning "not literal."
Actually, I think we do.
I think I just factually disagree with you here. I think it would be very rare for a fluent English speaker to hear “cradle of civilization” and need to actually do the work of calling up the concept of a baby bed and make educated guesses about what metaphorical similarities the speaker is trying to evoke.
In fact, in American English I think it’s pretty rare to use “cradle” in informal speech to refer to a baby bed. “Crib” or even “bassinet” or “baby bed” are much more common. “Cradle” is in the lyrics of a well-known lullaby, but to use it in casual speech would be somewhat conspicuous. It’s much more common as a verb, like “cradle the baby in your arms,” which I suspect you would also describe as a metaphorical usage (and I would disagree).
Whether "cradle" is more or less common than "crib" (say) doesn't indicate one way or another whether its usage in other contexts is as a first- or second-order signifier.
In this case, it was not a good idea to use the word "literally" this way, in this place. The clearest sign that it wasn't a good idea is that this discussion about the word is happening.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-d...
https://youtu.be/0p5oNM86Hgw?t=257
@4:17 "No one complains about "fabulous"... or "marvelous"... or even the word "very"... etymologically meaning true..."
I myself am coming to a place of acceptance about the use of "begs the question" to mean "raises the question". While I will never use it that way, I no longer literally grind my teeth to dust when I hear it.
It isn't naivety for one to be bothered by it; it is grammatical laziness to misuse it. Maybe I will care less when poor kids born today misuse it in 20 years.
Need I say more than the above quote to convince someone that the “figurative use of literally” should be avoided? I’d say the same of any other auto-antonym.
Language is a tool to communicate our meaning. When we use words that obscure our meaning, it ceases to serve its purpose.
Yes, I understand it is hyperbolic. Yes, I understand it has been used in this way for a long time. The reason that the author of this video has words like “very”, “ridiculous”, and “fabulous” to complain about is because nobody was a stickler about those words long ago, and they’ve now lost their meaning. Yet somehow, rather than encouraging people to use words to mean what they mean, he decides that since it’s happened before, we ought to accept it happening again. I don’t know why he would ever decide that is the rational decision.
b
: a place of origin
the cradle of civilization
An accepted definition of "cradle" is a place of origin. Please do not spread misinformation with such confidence without first doing a Google search.
Similarly, if I say "cats and dogs," that isn't a measure of volume or intensity except where paired with "raining." Having to say "of civilization" indicates that "cradle" is being used metaphorically or idiomatically.
Please be more charitable. None of what I've said is misinformation.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nile_River_and_del...
Reviewing the Wikipedia article about the Niagara [1], it appears that this is an oversight, because with an average discharge rate of 5,796 m3/s, it should be #49 on this list. I went to edit the page to fix that issue, but it looks like doing so requires manually updating the "No" (number) column, which I don't have time for right now.