[QUOTE=Miller]
Unfortunetly, language is neither mathematical, nor particularly logical. You’re totally wrong on this one, Lib. There’s a substantial difference between saying someone is pretending, and saying someone is pretentious. Pretentious carries heavy connotations of egoism and unearned superiority. It is always a negative. Pretending is more akin to play acting, and carries no particular ethical or moral connotation. At worst, it connotes a mild childishness.
[/QUOTE]
Do you think Czar intended no insult, but was making a merely neutral or complimentary observation?
[QUOTE=pulykamell]
Sounds to me like the dictionary is recording an idiomatic usage, which is what good dictionaries do. Quite obviously, literally “literally” does not mean “figuratively.”
[/QUOTE]
Sounds? All you have to do is look. They signify idioms by noting that they’re idioms.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Sounds? All you have to do is look. They signify idioms by noting that they’re idioms.
[/QUOTE]
“Literally” is an intensifier when used in the figurative sense. I would consider the usage idiomatic. What would you consider the usage then?
[QUOTE=pulykamell]
“Literally” is an intensifier when used in the figurative sense. I would consider the usage idiomatic. What would you consider the usage then?
[/QUOTE]
Dictionaries indicate when usages are slang, nonstandard, or idiomatic. See fix and ace for examples.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Dictionaries indicate when usages are slang, nonstandard, or idiomatic. See fix and ace for examples.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. Not all. Look at “doormat,” for instance. Only in one dictionary that I checked online has it listed doormat, in the idiomatic sense of someone who is a pushover, as slang or idiom. Random House, Marriam-Webster, and a couple others just list it normally. Or do you not consider “doormat” an idiomatic expression?
edit: Plus, you still haven’t answered my question: if you don’t consider “literally” in the intensifying sense an idiom, what is it? It’s obviously not the literal meaning of the word.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Do you think Czar intended no insult, but was making a merely neutral or complimentary observation?
[/QUOTE]
I can’t speak to Czarcasm’s intentions, except to say that if any insult was proferred, it was not “pretentious” by a plain reading of the text.
[QUOTE=pulykamell]
Nope. Not all.
[/QUOTE]
But the links I gave you did, which you can discover by, you know, clicking them.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
But “androphobia” would mean the same without the needless barbarism of mixing Greek and Latin roots.
[/QUOTE]
Nah, that means fear of men, as in males. Anthropophobia is what I’d go for.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
But the links I gave you did, which you can discover by, you know, clicking them.
[/QUOTE]
I, ya know, clicked on 'em, and I don’t understand how either answer my question.
edit: In addition, that dictionary does not list “doormat” as slang, informal, or anything.
So, again, if “literally” used as an intensifier is not an idiomatic usage of the word, what is it? Because logically, it cannot be a literal usage.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I can’t speak to Czarcasm’s intentions, except to say that if any insult was proferred, it was not “pretentious” by a plain reading of the text.
[/QUOTE]
He used it as an intransitive verb. See previous links.
[QUOTE=pulykamell]
I, ya know, clicked on 'em, and I don’t understand how either answer my question.
[/QUOTE]
You know, there is nothing more important in heaven and earth than answering your question. Let me give it the thought I believe it is due, in line with the courtesies you have extended to me.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Do you think Czar intended no insult, but was making a merely neutral or complimentary observation?
[/QUOTE]
While I agree it was intended as a hit of some sort, stretching it to mean pretentious is, well, a bit of a stretch.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
You know, there is nothing more important in heaven and earth than answering your question. Let me give it the thought I believe it is due, in line with the courtesies you have extended to me.
[/QUOTE]
God forbid I should ask you to address a question that I posed in my second post to you.
Take your time, Lib. Lord knows you have better things to do than argue about words like “pretentious” and “literally.”
[QUOTE=Frank]
While I agree it was intended as a hit of some sort, stretching it to mean pretentious is, well, a bit of a stretch.
[/QUOTE]
Very well then, we shall leave it to be a mystery hit. Unless mystery has changed meanings, too. 
[QUOTE=Liberal]
He used it as an intransitive verb. See previous links.
[/QUOTE]
So what? The word still doesn’t mean what you’re saying it means.
Take it up with the folks at Dictionary.com. Write them a letter or something. It’s definition number (3).
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Very well then, we shall leave it to be a mystery hit. Unless mystery has changed meanings, too.
[/QUOTE]
Here, for those who have lost their scorecard, is the quote:
Were that directed at me, I would think that I was being told I was either ignoring evidence or was faking ignorance. I’d take either as a hit, but neither as calling me pretentious.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Take it up with the folks at Dictionary.com. Write them a letter or something. It’s definition number (3).
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but there are seven other definitions there. When you use a word, it does not simultaneously mean everything it could possible mean. Hell, look at “literally,” where it is literally impossible for both of its common definitions to apply at the same time. If Czarcasm had told you, “Stop pretending like you’re the king of the world,” then he would have accused you of being pretentious. What he said was, “Quit pretending (whether it’s to yourself or to others) that the RRR is limited to some fringe area.” There’s simply no way to read this sentence so as to apply the third definition of the word “pretending.”
I forget the logical term for it, but it’s the old “All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles,” thing. Anyone who is being pretentious is pretending, but not everyone who pretends is pretentious.
Well, there’s at least one absolute I can take away from this thread: Liberal, while not a stupid person, has absolutely no idea how a dictionary works.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I’m afraid you’re asking the wrong guy that question, Kimo Sabe. 
[/QUOTE]
For Fuck’s Sake! It’s a fucking yes/no question, idiot. Your can’t hide behind your personal fucking baggage without being a dodging cunt. You know that had nothing to do with your precious fucking ancestry, but I’ll do you the favour and reset the scenario so you can’t use that excuse to sidestep it.:
Are a bunch of kids playing Cops and Robbers pretentious?
And any “My ancestors were bandits once, I’m 3/64th robber, you know” answers will be laughed at long and hard.