701
they don't mind
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
701 points (97.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
8527 readers
2789 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I have (begrudgingly) gotten used to "singular they". I accept that I am not an authority on how language is used, and this is how the language has evolved. I'd have preferred a separate singular non-gendered pronoun, but I wasn't consulted because, again, not an authority on the subject. It is fine, I will adapt (and have already done so to some degree).
HOWEVER, I still have beef with what happened to "literally" and will bring it up any time semantic shift is the subject of conversation.
Asking "how are they doing" when referring to a singular third person has literally always been normal english. The singular they has basically always been fine and proper english.
Shakespeare had no problem with singular they, by the way.
I also found it natural to use before I had a concept of those existing outside the gender binary. "Who left their umbrella?"
Mentioning semantic shift here doesn't seem to do anything but make me imagine you are grandpa Simpson yelling at passing clouds.
i'm totally grandpa simpson about this. "Literally" is literally a lost cause.
I want to make fun of you for being older than Shakespeare. Even Shakespeare was less of a boomer about singular they
Gotten used to the singular they? Were you born in 900 or something? Seriously, the first written example we have of the singular they dates back to the 14th century.
Literally also dates back to the 1600s
Nothing happened to “literally”, its meaning is the same as always and it never means “figuratively”.
When people say “literally” to exaggerate, the word is part of the exaggeration, not describing the exaggeration.
They’re not literally “dead”, they’re “literally dead”. “Literally dead” is the state they exaggerate being in.
Can you explain the difference between the two? To me, either case still creates ambiguity and unnecessary confusion in the language.
Consider an expression “he was as happy as a kid in a literal candy store”, meaning as “as happy as a kid in a store literally made from candy”. “Literally” here modifies the nonexistent candy store and turns it into a store made out of candy. There is no contention here about whether the store exists or not, it’s just part of the exaggeration.
Similarly you can say “I’m so dead-tired I might as well be literally dead for all the good I’ll be at work today.” Here the state you’re saying you might as well be in is “literally dead”. Not just “dead-tired”, not just “dead to the world”, but “literally dead”. But it’s still clear that no real death has occurred, just an hypothetical one as part of the exaggeration.
Now let’s exaggerate even more and say we’ve reached that hypothetical state of literal deadness, how would you say it? “Sorry I can’t work I’m literally dead” is one way, but now it’s unclear because this also could mean that you have actually died. How about “sorry I am in the state of being literally dead”? A bit awkward but at least it’s clear you’re not REALLY in the state of literal death, you’re just exaggerating that you’re in that state.
People use “literal” as an intensifier to the exaggeration, by modifying the exaggeration from within, not from outside of it commenting on the truth of it.
If you get this multiple times I’m sorry, I’m on a train and internet is patchy
Literally literally means figuratively.
i know, and it upsets me.