All this could be solved if people would accept that English changes over time and if defined by usage and understanding.
If people easily understand what I mean when I say gif then I have pronounced it correctly. Same as if people understand what I mean if I use “literally” to mean “figuratively” or spell “island” with an ‘s’ despite it having no Latin roots.
If it impedes understanding and causes to person you’re talking to take more time and/or effort to understand the message you are trying to convey then it is incorrect.
There is a small extra cognitive shift where the brain realizes those aren’t typos or random letters and are intended to represent those words, so it does add an impediment to understanding. If it became common for people to write them as ‘r’ and ‘u’ then over time that would become correct.
Just like if it was common for people to pronounce “gif” one way and then someone came along and said “Well the creator wants it pronounced another way” the correct response is “who gives a fuck? This is how the word is used now.” The ‘creator’ of the word “island” did not have an ‘s’ in it, but no one is arguing for it to be spelled “eyland”.
You re-read sentences much more often than you might suspect and it happens with all kinds of sentences, even grammatically correct ones. Garden-path sentences, for example “the old men the boat”, are specifically crafted to demonstrate this and they essentially are doing the same thing as using ‘r’ and ‘u’ as a substitute for words: they violate the Gricean maxim of manner and that one relies a lot on expectation.
However, one could make a case that in some situations, like a “how r u” via text, the replacement is ubiquitous and somewhat expected and doesn’t cause any impediment to understanding. It’s definitely a hinderance when a more verbose communication is expected. Might be a neat subject for a phonetic study, honestly.
I understand, but ‘Island’ has an ‘s’ in it. This was a done as a stylistic choice to Latinize a word that has no Latin roots, and it caught on. English is a mongrel tongue with it’s rules defined by how the unwashed masses use it; You’re fighting a losing battle.
But they don’t easily understand you. You’re being deliberately lazy and shifting the onus of putting mental work into the conversation onto your conversational partner. Now they have to work extra-hard to deciphwr your gibberish. The decent, respectful thing to do is treat them as an equal, and put an equal amount of effort into achieving communication.
Or I could just tell you to flarfle your garglax. Seems perfectly clear to me, so obviously you’re in the wrong if you complain.
I agree, it’s stupid, but arguing against it is “old man yells at cloud” territory. The fact is if I said “I literally couldn’t get out of bed this morning” the meaning of that statement is well understood.
All of this could be solved if people actually cared about finding a reasonable solution. We don’t fight about it because it’s worth fighting over. We fight because it’s in our blood. We must fight to satisfy our primal urge for conflict.
So take up your keyboard, mouse, phone, or any other weapon that suits you. Join me in the battle of “gif vs gif”, and may the best warrior find victory.
It isn’t really used to mean figuratively though. It’s used as an intensifier, and all of its synonyms are as well. And they all have been for hundreds of years. Really, truly, honestly, actually, etc. Seems so strange to me that this is the single word from the group that gets dogpiled on, and the perception that it’s some new phenomenon, Mark Twain used it in the same manner.
All of this could be solved if English weren’t a shit language with incoherent phonemes.
All this could be solved if people would accept that English changes over time and if defined by usage and understanding.
If people easily understand what I mean when I say gif then I have pronounced it correctly. Same as if people understand what I mean if I use “literally” to mean “figuratively” or spell “island” with an ‘s’ despite it having no Latin roots.
And if u spel werds liek this and r stil understud is it kerect?
If it impedes understanding and causes to person you’re talking to take more time and/or effort to understand the message you are trying to convey then it is incorrect.
So r u saying that writing “are” and “you” that way is correct? Because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t impede understanding in the slightest.
There is a small extra cognitive shift where the brain realizes those aren’t typos or random letters and are intended to represent those words, so it does add an impediment to understanding. If it became common for people to write them as ‘r’ and ‘u’ then over time that would become correct.
Just like if it was common for people to pronounce “gif” one way and then someone came along and said “Well the creator wants it pronounced another way” the correct response is “who gives a fuck? This is how the word is used now.” The ‘creator’ of the word “island” did not have an ‘s’ in it, but no one is arguing for it to be spelled “eyland”.
You re-read sentences much more often than you might suspect and it happens with all kinds of sentences, even grammatically correct ones. Garden-path sentences, for example “the old men the boat”, are specifically crafted to demonstrate this and they essentially are doing the same thing as using ‘r’ and ‘u’ as a substitute for words: they violate the Gricean maxim of manner and that one relies a lot on expectation.
However, one could make a case that in some situations, like a “how r u” via text, the replacement is ubiquitous and somewhat expected and doesn’t cause any impediment to understanding. It’s definitely a hinderance when a more verbose communication is expected. Might be a neat subject for a phonetic study, honestly.
English changes over time, but you can’t just change spellings all willy-nilly without it looking weird. This happens pretty slowly.
Heaven forbid I layer my irony by using literally as hyperbole.
You don’t actually mean heaven should forbid it, you mean “figuratively speaking heaven forbid”!
I will continue to say LITRALLY everytime somebody uses literally as figuratively.
I understand, but ‘Island’ has an ‘s’ in it. This was a done as a stylistic choice to Latinize a word that has no Latin roots, and it caught on. English is a mongrel tongue with it’s rules defined by how the unwashed masses use it; You’re fighting a losing battle.
But they don’t easily understand you. You’re being deliberately lazy and shifting the onus of putting mental work into the conversation onto your conversational partner. Now they have to work extra-hard to deciphwr your gibberish. The decent, respectful thing to do is treat them as an equal, and put an equal amount of effort into achieving communication.
Or I could just tell you to flarfle your garglax. Seems perfectly clear to me, so obviously you’re in the wrong if you complain.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
This is literally how babies learn to speak. If babies can do it, so can we.
Grandma: call 911, I’m literally having a heart attack
Seems like it might be important for words to actually mean things. Is Grandma being dramatic or is she dying…
Ah, so you want to abolish figurative language too. I like where this is going
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
I agree, it’s stupid, but arguing against it is “old man yells at cloud” territory. The fact is if I said “I literally couldn’t get out of bed this morning” the meaning of that statement is well understood.
All of this could be solved if people actually cared about finding a reasonable solution. We don’t fight about it because it’s worth fighting over. We fight because it’s in our blood. We must fight to satisfy our primal urge for conflict.
So take up your keyboard, mouse, phone, or any other weapon that suits you. Join me in the battle of “gif vs gif”, and may the best warrior find victory.
It isn’t really used to mean figuratively though. It’s used as an intensifier, and all of its synonyms are as well. And they all have been for hundreds of years. Really, truly, honestly, actually, etc. Seems so strange to me that this is the single word from the group that gets dogpiled on, and the perception that it’s some new phenomenon, Mark Twain used it in the same manner.