That's a slippery slope to having "r" be an acceptable spelling for the third-person plural of to be.
It's Prince's fault.
Willow: That's a work ethic! Buffy, you're developing a work ethic! Buffy: Do they make an ointment for that?
'Beneath You'
Spike's Bitches 46: Don't I get a cookie?
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
DavidS - May 16, 2011 7:28:45 am PDT #21423 of 30000
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
§ ita § - May 16, 2011 7:28:55 am PDT #21424 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Seriously, though--spoken usage can count in the evolution of language, or written in another media, just not on the internet?
Ginger - May 16, 2011 7:45:34 am PDT #21425 of 30000
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda
Usage affects the evolving meaning of words, but has much less effect on grammar and punctuation.
§ ita § - May 16, 2011 7:57:17 am PDT #21426 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Well, that was before there was so much usage involving punctuation. It seems natural that usage is relevant, even if prescriptivists hate it.
Steph L. - May 16, 2011 8:06:15 am PDT #21427 of 30000
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine
It seems natural that usage is relevant, even if prescriptivists hate it.
Here's where I need to point out the irony of "literally" no longer being used to mean "literally."
I mean, really? Why is usage born out of sheer ignorance acceptable in the evolution of words' meaning?
If loving punctuation within quotation marks is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Yes, well it's clear that you don't want to be right.
Have I ever given a damn about this? Do you think it's likely I'm going to start now?
§ ita § - May 16, 2011 8:23:49 am PDT #21428 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Why is usage born out of sheer ignorance acceptable in the evolution of words' meaning?
I don't think acceptability has anything to do with it. It's inevitability. Being right or sensible about what something means or how it's expressed is nothing in the face of how it's actually expressed. Some fights I think can be won, but against prevalence? I just don't see it happening.
I am a prescriptivist, let's be clear. But also a pessimist. I will correct on the usage of decimate every single time I see it mangled. But I also understand that the battle is already lost.
Steph L. - May 16, 2011 8:29:03 am PDT #21429 of 30000
this mess was yours / now your mess is mine
Being right or sensible about what something means or how it's expressed is nothing in the face of how it's actually expressed. Some fights I think can be won, but against prevalence? I just don't see it happening.
I'm just ragey because the prevalence comes from sheer ignorance. People are using "literally" to mean the exact opposite of what it means. (Again, the irony, it burns.)
§ ita § - May 16, 2011 8:31:35 am PDT #21430 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I don't recall ever seeing it used to mean the exact opposite. I usually see it used as a fervent intensifier.
At least back when I misused it (I still remember Mrs. Cullen telling me I didn't mean "it was literally hell in the raincoat") I didn't mean it definitely wasn't hell. I just meant it was the most hellish thing ever, like as hellish as hell, oh my god.
I was also 14.
Polter-Cow - May 16, 2011 8:31:44 am PDT #21431 of 30000
What else besides ramen can you scoop? YOU CAN SCOOP THIS WORLD FROM DARKNESS!
(Again, the irony, it burns.)
Literally?
§ ita § - May 16, 2011 8:32:06 am PDT #21432 of 30000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Literally?
Yes.