And if I say “die” in regards to a single object and “dice” for plural, you and everyone else still understands what I’m talking about. Isn’t language neat?
Originally, “literally” was never a word but through thousands of years of evolution and adaption it came into being, miraculously, as the “literally” we all knew and loved between the time of our birth and 2006.
When “literally” quite literally evolved a new meaning in the 1800s used for emphasis to replace the empty definition slot left by the dropping of the the 15th century meaning of “in regards of letters or writing”, many of Literally’s fans jumped ship.
These days Literally wanders from town to town, playing gig off of the commonly used meaning with the salt of the earth types, while from the ivory towers comes but spit and scorn.
But you can help, for as little as 2.50₩ a month you can help finance Literally’s return tour as being used to mean “with or regards to letters or words” and help elevate this star from hard times of having to rely on the plebians for usage. After all, is not a frequency band of 5, but exclusive use by academics not more worthy than band 6 used by all? If you agree, your views, snobbery, and financing can make all the difference.
Help a word stick to it’s archaic meanings today. Because if the world isn’t like it was when you were 15, is it really worth living in?
![[LastPlaceComics] Mario Party](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/12ad1b78-0ce2-4eb4-a1b2-7aaf4123740d.jpeg){kind=link}
Contrary to what you might have been told, the singular for dice can be either “die” or “dice”.
That’s only because that’s how people use the term. It didn’t start that way. Isn’t language neat?
Using “dice” as a singular noun dates back the 1400s. I think it’s been in circulation long enough to be commonly accepted by now.
And if I say “die” in regards to a single object and “dice” for plural, you and everyone else still understands what I’m talking about. Isn’t language neat?
Yeah? That’s what I said above - either can correctly be used. Not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
That language is neat. I wasn’t trying to be argumentative, sorry if it came off that way.
“Literally” no longer means just “literally”, but also “figuratively”. Otherwise known as the opposite of the original definition.
Originally, “literally” was never a word but through thousands of years of evolution and adaption it came into being, miraculously, as the “literally” we all knew and loved between the time of our birth and 2006.
When “literally” quite literally evolved a new meaning in the 1800s used for emphasis to replace the empty definition slot left by the dropping of the the 15th century meaning of “in regards of letters or writing”, many of Literally’s fans jumped ship.
These days Literally wanders from town to town, playing gig off of the commonly used meaning with the salt of the earth types, while from the ivory towers comes but spit and scorn.
But you can help, for as little as 2.50₩ a month you can help finance Literally’s return tour as being used to mean “with or regards to letters or words” and help elevate this star from hard times of having to rely on the plebians for usage. After all, is not a frequency band of 5, but exclusive use by academics not more worthy than band 6 used by all? If you agree, your views, snobbery, and financing can make all the difference.
Help a word stick to it’s archaic meanings today. Because if the world isn’t like it was when you were 15, is it really worth living in?