Second definition here has a date of Feb 2010, matching the definition precisely with examples of usage that match.:
ETA: Further down (second page), there’s also an August 2009 definition of “kinda” for low-key.
Never heard it used in the musical sense, never thought of it that way. Though it I guess it makes sense that that’s what it’s derived from.
Again, I’ve heard this used for as long as I can remember. Way, way before the 2000’s
This thread is about the adverbial use, which apparently became popular around 2010-12 among teens, though someone also cited a rap song from 2000. I’d never heard it until today.
You’re referring to the adjectival use, very common among all age groups since around the mid-20th century.
DangerMan’s examples had nothing to do with musical vs. other uses – that was just an artifact of his choice of sample phrases.
In Michigan, the kids here have been using it for several years. As a Neil Gaiman fan, I realized when I first heard it that it likely originated with American Gods. But the popularity of the Loki character in the Marvel movies and the recent TV series may have intensified its appeal.
I don’t think that it’s actually connected with “Loki”. I do know that, when I first started hearing it, my attempts at punning it with “Loki” fell completely flat.
Also, the only use of “Low-Key” in American Gods is as a proper noun, or arguably an adjective (the character is called “Low-Key Lyesmith”). That’s pretty far from the adverbial use described here.
But “Low-Key Lyesmith” is Loki. That’s part of the premise of the novel. The name is a pun. The popularity of the Marvel character may have reinforced the usage originating from the Gaiman book because they are (different versions of) the same character.
Yes, of course in Gaiman’s book it’s a pun. But the point is that it doesn’t bear any particular resemblance to the current slang usage.
Nah, I don’t think it has anything to do with Loki. It’s just an outgrowth of the adjectival usage. It’s pretty clear to me the meanings are closely related. “Low-key” as the adjective we grew up with means “not showy” and “restrained”, even shades of “secretive” or “inconspicuous” depending on context. When used as an adverb, it similarly means “in a subdued manner,” which can be construed as “kinda.” So, “I low-key have a crush on her” would be like a restrained, quiet crush, clearly borrowing from the adjectival meaning, just using it adverbially.
Indeed. It seems quite natural - I perked up my ears when I first heard the way kids use it, but I never needed them to explain what they meant.
I am in Southern California and immediately knew what was intended in the OP. I’ve been hearing it for eight-ish years. It was clear to me from context what it meant. I highly doubt that it has anything to do with modern depictions of Loki.
I first heard it a few years ago when someone said “I low-key love that movie!” Which at the time made no sense to me. But when I started hearing it more often, I realized it was being used as enthusiasm, rather than what I thought of as restrained.
Not exactly. I think it means that they secretly love that movie. Not here (from context) in the sense that it’s a confidential matter and you shouldn’t tell anyone, but that they do love it even if they haven’t been ostentatious in their praise.
Hard to be sure since I’ve only seen internet usage where tone is often ambiguous, but I think another usage shift has already started: from understated/secret enthusiasm to generic enthusiasm. People hear “I low-key love X” often enough and don’t necessarily perceive the understated connotation, just the enthusiasm. They start using it in the latter way and eventually that usage takes over (there must be a linguistics term for this process; it happens time and again).
I think it was always quite broad - it can effectively be a way to emphasize your enthusiasm, “secretly” only in the loose sense of “even though I haven’t told you guys before”.
I’m not sure about “always.” It seems possible at least that it wasn’t really used for emphasis initially; just an adverb usage of an adjective, but with essentially the same meaning. Only later was it used for emphasis.
I’m not 100% sure this is right–maybe the adjectival use broadened first, and once the adverb form became popular it already had the same broad meaning. Distinguishing the cases would require some research.
Regardless, I’m wondering if someday soon, only the enthusiasm connotation will remain, without any sense of understatement.
Semantic drift (or semantic shift), of which there are many sub-types (amelioration, pejoration, narrowing, broadening, etc.)
I have always understood it to mean “kind of” or “sort of” as someone else mentioned upthread.
It depends exactly how and as what part of speech it’s used. i think the OP’s link is a good account that is consistent with my experience of the usage - although with this kind of thing (old person listening to young people talking) I feel like I’m studying a second language.
Here’s an example elaborating on what ‘word placement’ means while using low-key — while bearing in mind all that the term means, online.
- Yeah, she told she low-key has a crush on her.
- Yeah, she told she has a low-key crush on her.
In this example, there are two different sides to the same story that can blend into each other at times. She has a crush on her. But, the intensity and visibility of that crush vary. In the first example, the placement of ‘low-key’ signifies she discreetly has a crush on someone. Here, the crush is a secret – one that’s possibly spoken in confidence.
The second example suggests she has a small, subtle, or slight crush on the person. Here, the crush is measured due to the placement of the term. Here’s another variation of the same sentence, but with a different placement of ‘low-key’:
- Yeah, she low-key told she has a crush on her.
Now, this example branches from the first. The matter of having a crush on someone was confided and the conversation was possibly meant to stay low-profile as well. It was spoken in discretion, with trust, and maybe in a soft tone too.
Although these aren’t the only uses, there are numerous more examples in that article, some of which I don’t think I’ve encountered. We need an @ to summon the 5 people under 30 on here.
All this is about is its use as an adverb instead of an adjective. JKellyMap is the only one who has understood that.
That is not correct. Some early posts were unfamiliar with modern usage. Also, the difference in modern usage is not just a question of its use as an adverb.