I swiftly herewith consign to the pit, the ignorant clowns who misconstrue "its"

[Inner_Stickler]

@lance_strongarm

What could go wrong with using literally to mean its exact opposite?

Nothing. It certainly wouldn’t be the first word to be treated like that. Or do you also have a problem with words like cleave, buckle, bound, fast, clip, sanction, left, with and oversight?

[lance_strongarm]

@billfish678

Why not snark?

You expect us to take your complaint (much less your arguements) seriously?

I have plenty of things in my life in the real world to be proud of or thankful for. I don’t need a reputation on the interconnected series of tubes for being smart or (gawd help me even more) for having perfect grammar and spelling, to pull out an existential “hail mary” to feel good about myself.

Your mileage may vary.

“Mary” is a proper name and should be capitalized. Your series-of-tubes reputation is sinking even lower! Quick, post something mildly funny on Facebook!

[lance_strongarm]

@Inner_Stickler

Nothing. It certainly wouldn’t be the first word to be treated like that. Or do you also have a problem with words like cleave, buckle, bound, fast, clip, sanction, left, with and oversight?

Which comment are you responding too? Please quote them so we can tell. Thanks.

[billfish678]

@lance_strongarm

“Mary” is a proper name and should be capitalized. Your series-of-tubes reputation is sinking even lower! Quick, post something mildly funny on Facebook!

I couldn’t leave this place for some other place as upscale as that.

[Indistinguishable]

@PoorYorick

I’ve accepted that the word “fewer” is going the way of the dodo and now just sigh when I see “Now with less calories!” or “Ten or less items.” But misuse of “literally”? I won’t go down without a fight.

For what it’s worth, using “literally” as a generic intensifier really makes my blood boil, too. It’s truly a plague on the English language. I know I’m really laid-back on usage peeves in general, but this one actually drives me insane. In fact, it’s quite soul-crushing.

[Indistinguishable]

I missed this earlier:

@lance_strongarm

@Indistinguishable

Again, nonsensical random sniping at descriptivism.

Descriptivists recognize rules and correctness criteria; they just recognize them as emergent from, and identified with, patterns of common usage rather than pronouncements from on high. Descriptivists understand that you can argue for the falsehood of a rule by showing that people do not actually typically follow it. (Descriptivists also understand that the vast majority of rules of English grammar are followed unconsciously, to the point where most speakers could not consciously articulate them; that’s why not everyone is a professional syntactician).

I’ll link to a post by linguist Geoffrey Pullum which I’ve linked to before. Hopefully, it will put an end to this kind of completely misinformed parody of descriptivism.

By your definition, I’m perfectly happy being classed with descriptivists.

My parody was more of *you *than descripitivists.

In what way do you feel I do not match this definition of an apparently sensible descriptivist?

[Darth_Panda]

@Indistinguishable

For what it’s worth, using “literally” as a generic intensifier really makes my blood boil, too.

Literally?

[Bosstone]

@Indistinguishable

For what it’s worth, using “literally” as a generic intensifier really makes my blood boil, too. It’s truly a plague on the English language. I know I’m really laid-back on usage peeves in general, but this one actually drives me insane. In fact, it’s quite soul-crushing.

That killed me.

[wonky]

@greenslime1951

If you have read very much at all, you know that the use of an apostrophe to indicate a contraction–not just something like “can’t” or “they’re,” but also the omission of a syllable—is not just a “specialized use” but a very, very common tool. Aside from its use in plays, poems, and the like, it’s often used to indicate vernacular speech. Without it, the tone and flavor of such speech can’t be captured (using it was part of Samuel Clemens’ genius).

Most of the time, people who post in “accents” should be shunned. Despite my love of Dickens, that’s true of him, too.

BTW, separate lines of verse with /.

[lance_strongarm]

@Indistinguishable

For what it’s worth, using “literally” as a generic intensifier really makes my blood boil, too. It’s truly a plague on the English language. I know I’m really laid-back on usage peeves in general, but this one actually drives me insane. In fact, it’s quite soul-crushing.

Stop being a prescriptive ninny!

Seriously, you have no right to complain. The people use words the way they want, and you have to go along. You said so yourself.

[lance_strongarm]

@Indistinguishable

I missed this earlier:
In what way do you feel I do not match this definition of an apparently sensible descriptivist?

You overreact, and you overstate the case against prescriptivism by attacking my perfectly sensible and not overly prescriptive views.

[drewtwo99]

@Indistinguishable

For what it’s worth, using “literally” as a generic intensifier **really **makes my blood boil, too. It’s **truly **a plague on the English language. I know I’m really laid-back on usage peeves in general, but this one **actually **drives me insane. In fact, it’s quite soul-crushing.

(bolding mine)

I lol’d.

Unless this wasn’t supposed to be funny.

In which case I lol 2 times as hard.

[Indistinguishable]

Also, I must admit, the crushing of my soul was not quite factual.

[Bosstone]

That’s what gets me about the literally shibboleth and others. It’s only one part of a widely common and uncontroversial speech pattern, but it’s the one that gets singled out.

I can only surmise this is because the people singling it out were taught to single it out by people who single it out because they were taught to single it out and…

It’s turtles all the way down.

[wonky]

@Indistinguishable

Also, I must admit, the crushing of my soul was not quite factual.

Was it maybe a little bruisy around the edges?

[greenslime1951]

@Inner_Stickler

No, what makes you look stupid is when you complain about improper use of the language while misusing misconstrues. Unless you are actually pitting people who look at the word its and mistake it for a word with a different meaning.

Making the mistake, writing the wrong word, looking at it, and leaving it there is indeed misconstruing it.

And yes, I am pitting such people–those who look at “its” and misconstrue its meaning as “it is.” Or, those who look at “it’s” and misconstrue it as a possessive form. I never said that I was criticizing a typographical error, but rather, one of understanding.

[wonky]

@greenslime1951

Making the mistake, writing the wrong word, looking at it, and leaving it there is indeed misconstruing it.

And yes, I am pitting such people–those who look at “its” and misconstrue its meaning as “it is.” Or, those who look at “it’s” and misconstrue it as a possessive form. I never said that I was criticizing a typographical error, but rather, one of understanding.

You really like commas and the sound of your own voice in your head.

[greenslime1951]

@jsgoddess

Most of the time, people who post in “accents” should be shunned. Despite my love of Dickens, that’s true of him, too.

BTW, separate lines of verse with /.

I don’t have to; commas work just as well when the entire expression is a line or lines of verse. Obviously, I’m well aware of the / convention, but strictly speaking, it only needs to be used when quoting verse, not when originating it.

(Since you want to be nitpicky.)

[wonky]

@greenslime1951

I don’t have to; commas work just as well when the entire expression is a line or lines of verse. Obviously, I’m well aware of the / convention, but strictly speaking, it only needs to be used when quoting verse, not when originating it.

Obviously? I don’t know you from Adam’s ass, and your statements in this thread started stupid and got stupider. There’s no “obviously” here.

[greenslime1951]

@jsgoddess

You really like commas and the sound of your own voice in your head.

Lay off the fucking insults and insinuations, please. I obviously care more about proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation than you do. No doubt, you care more about some things than I do. Such phenomena are called differences of opinion.

I haven’t offered any speculations or criticisms re your personality, preferences, etc., not in the least because it would be stupid to try to do so on the mere basis of reading a few of your internet postings. Why would you be so stupid as to make that same mistake about me?

(And by the way, it would be equally stupid and pointless to hunt down some typo I made to try to, in effect, say, “Neener neener neener, you obviously don’t care about grammar,” etc. Go ahead and do it anyway if you must; I do make mistakes.)