So you’re making some strange argument for some reason, and providing evidence to support your claims that actually show evidence to support my claims, but you want me to ignore that part.
And I’m saying 1-b is so strongly universal in English speaking countries that it should probably swap places with 1-a. Arguing against this feels pretty nitpicky to be honest. Look at the ratio of people who agree with the top level comment, e.g. 🤷♂️
I’ll concede your argument might not be “strange”—that was a poor choice of word—but you are openly ignoring counter arguments which feels strange. And saying things like “I don’t speak Latin” out of nowhere in the middle of argumentation, like that’s a counter argument.
This whole correspondence just feels like I’m talking to a character from Alice in Wonderland.
What would swapping 1-a and 1-b’s places do? I’m not ignoring 1-b because it’s lower in rank or something. In the context of the given sentence, it just doesn’t apply.
I’ll share an anecdote, okay. This is an excerpt from Dickens’ Bleak House, the beginning of chapter 1:
Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.
The word ‘wonderful’ there is not being used to mean ‘good’ or ‘exciting’, it’s leaning on an archaic definition that means ‘strange’. It might have positive connotations; I sort of feel like it does. It’s kind of hard to understand, though, unless you have that piece of information.
When I learned this information, let’s say about a month ago, my initial thoughts were “Oh wow. I didn’t know wonderful could mean that. That’s cool. I learned something.” And now, Bleak House, which is before my time, will be slightly less challenging to read. I’m sure I won’t, but it will be.
I’m not being nitpicky for no reason, I’m arguing in favor of literacy. Knowing that ‘accidental’ can be used in ways you don’t expect should be interesting, and not just flatly refused.
Further, I don’t see people who agree that the word is used incorrectly, I see people who are mildly confused by it. All of them understand what’s being said just fine. And all I’m saying is that they don’t need to be confused.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the word ‘literally’? About how it’s often used as an intensifier now and has lost some of its significance as an antonym to figurative. I’ll share my answer after yours.
So you’re making some strange argument for some reason, and providing evidence to support your claims that actually show evidence to support my claims, but you want me to ignore that part.
Let’s wrap this up shall we. 🙄
The strange argument is that they meant to use definition 1-a, and they did. It is a perfectly normal use of the word.
And I’m saying 1-b is so strongly universal in English speaking countries that it should probably swap places with 1-a. Arguing against this feels pretty nitpicky to be honest. Look at the ratio of people who agree with the top level comment, e.g. 🤷♂️
I’ll concede your argument might not be “strange”—that was a poor choice of word—but you are openly ignoring counter arguments which feels strange. And saying things like “I don’t speak Latin” out of nowhere in the middle of argumentation, like that’s a counter argument.
This whole correspondence just feels like I’m talking to a character from Alice in Wonderland.
What would swapping 1-a and 1-b’s places do? I’m not ignoring 1-b because it’s lower in rank or something. In the context of the given sentence, it just doesn’t apply.
I’ll share an anecdote, okay. This is an excerpt from Dickens’ Bleak House, the beginning of chapter 1:
The word ‘wonderful’ there is not being used to mean ‘good’ or ‘exciting’, it’s leaning on an archaic definition that means ‘strange’. It might have positive connotations; I sort of feel like it does. It’s kind of hard to understand, though, unless you have that piece of information.
When I learned this information, let’s say about a month ago, my initial thoughts were “Oh wow. I didn’t know wonderful could mean that. That’s cool. I learned something.” And now, Bleak House, which is before my time, will be slightly less challenging to read. I’m sure I won’t, but it will be.
I’m not being nitpicky for no reason, I’m arguing in favor of literacy. Knowing that ‘accidental’ can be used in ways you don’t expect should be interesting, and not just flatly refused.
Further, I don’t see people who agree that the word is used incorrectly, I see people who are mildly confused by it. All of them understand what’s being said just fine. And all I’m saying is that they don’t need to be confused.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the word ‘literally’? About how it’s often used as an intensifier now and has lost some of its significance as an antonym to figurative. I’ll share my answer after yours.