We can just add this to the list of hills on which I intend to die:

[conuly]

Cousins aren't incest unless they're actually siblings by birth or adoption or were raised more or less in a sibling fashion. Cousin marriage is very common worldwide and throughout history, and unless you do it over and over again for generations it's not really a problem for your genes.

I'm not saying we all should boink our cousins today, but I really wish people would stop talking about how gross and squicky and incest it is when that's a far from universal opinion. Honestly, not all opinions need to be gratuitously shared. (And really, you gotta wonder what is going on when somebody feels the need to talk all about this at the very drop of a hat, which happens more often than you might think. I genuinely have no idea how I keep encountering people who just want to talk so much about how gross cousins are. It's not like I'm actively looking for things to annoy me! Trying to avoid it, in fact.)

Sooooooo... what hills do you all plan to die on?

Edit: I somehow forgot how people are. The very very biggest hill on which I will always make a stand is the basic principle that adult native speakers do not make mistakes in their own native speech. (Barring serious language-related disabilities and momentary disfluencies.) This is the very foundation of the science of linguistics, because the alternative belief, that language somehow manages to exist outside the speakers, doesn't make any sense.

So you're welcome to say that your hill is some word usage you hate, but I will fight you on that. Especially if you hate it because you think it's just immutably and objectively wrong.

Comments

[alexseanchai]

I think it's because there's nothing else that means quite the same thing as the literal use of "literally", and plenty of other intensifiers that can substitute with equal accuracy for the intensifier use of "literally"

[conuly]

Are you arguing that the only acceptable use of the word "literal" and "literally" is to mean "of or relating to letters"? That is, after all, the one and only non-figurative definition of that word. If so, I agree that we do not have any other widely known single words that have that exact meaning.

However, if you are arguing that the use of the word "literally" to mean "really", "truly", "honestly", "sincerely" is a. the non-figurative use of the word or b. the only single word we have to mean those things then I cannot disagree more strongly.

[alexseanchai]

I'm arguing that every adverb you just mentioned has a specific meaning that relates specifically to its root word, with some overlap with at least one of the others but no more interchangeable than the root concepts themselves are and for the same reasons, and that when using any of those adverbs as an intensifier, its root word loses some relevance in all cases and all relevance in some cases. As "literacy" is much easier than "reality" to define in a way that's consistent between different university-level philosophy classes, the disconnect between the specific and intensifier senses of "literally" is much easier to notice than the said disconnect of "really", and there's a lot more words close to the specific meaning for "really" than for "literally". Finding a suitable substitute for the intensifier sense is about equally difficult between the two imo, though.

[conuly]

The only non-figurative sense of the word literal is “of or relating to letters”. Once we allow the figurative meaning of “truthful” then it’s not surprising that it immediately became an intensifier. That’s what generally happens to words that mean truthful.

[alexseanchai]

Yes and no? Like, yes, the pattern is there, and yes, that's why there's plenty of substitutes for "literally" as an intensifier. And also yes, that's why these adverbs' root words lose at least some relevance when these adverbs are intensifiers.

But also, illustrative cat photo: lovely cerulean and turquoise walls I've got there. So does that literally (figuratively) say my walls are blue? Yes, though much less blue than my curtains are, and if I were to open the photo in an image editor, the color picker would prove it. Does that literally (intensifier) say my walls are blue? Yes, but I have some reason to think you doubt either that I'm truthful or that I'm correct, such as there being color variation that's consistent with light reflecting off a brightly sunlit vividly blue surface onto a white surface in shade, and not consistent with photos of these walls in different lighting. Does that literally (literally) say my walls are blue? Yes and no, depending on whether we're taking "say" as literally as "literally", since there's no text in this image, and photos can't speak nor write. If we're not, then that depends on whether we're asking about the color of the pixels or the color of the paint. Did I literally (literally) say that my walls are blue? Yes and no: no, I didn't use the word "blue", but yes, that's an accurate paraphrase. Are my walls literally (intensifier) blue? Yes, but that's unusual. Are my walls literally (figuratively) blue? No, but they were when I took the photo. No, I'm observing their blue appearance. No, I was wrong, they're actually white. No, I lied.

(Did I buy blue curtains for the literary analysis joke? Discuss. 😛😸)

[conuly]

That's a long list of words to explain how there might be some confusion over a matter in which, really, there would never be any confusion at all.