Metaphors and inappropriate times to use them.

"My hempenis is an immovable rod"

Get two birds stoned at once

>>51752349
Well, you can misuse sayings in the way that real people do. I don't think I've heard a single person use "beg the question" or "the exception that proves the rule" correctly.

Some metaphors have been misused so much that they've become contronyms, like "moot point."

>>51756095
i just looked up all of those to make sure i knew what they meant and they do. not really sure i hear people misusing then except for people who think its "mute point" even though they basically mean it in the same way

are you sure YOURE not the one who doesnt understand them?

>>51756432
A "moot point" used to mean "a point up for discussion," but so many people have used it for so long to mean "a point too irrelevant to be discussed" that you can't use it either way and make your meaning clear.

Similarly, everyone things "begging the question" means "raising the question" rather than "trying to use the conclusion of your argument as support for itself." "The exception that proves the rule" uses a rather archaic meaning of the word "prove" - it's supposed to mean "the exception tests the rule." Instead people think it means that somehow evidence against a rule is evidence for it.

>>51757449
>waaah words used to mean something different before i was born

language isnt a science. words change meaning all the time. all the ways you are mad that these phrases are used are part of their official definition now. so to recap, the reason people "think" those phrases mean certain things is because they do mean those things

do you also go around pronouncing knee with a K because it used to be pronounced that way and getting mad at people who don't understand you?

>>51752349
Just make up your own.

>>51757846
Dude, I know it's a moot point now, but the guy never said he hates it. Just that in general people use it wrong. What he thought us are a bit exceptions to prove the rule, but nevertheless he thought us some very interesting facts. Which begs the question: what have you thought us today?

>>51757929
*thaught
English is not my native tongue

>>51757929
my only point is that its literally not incorrect. look up the definitions for those words and phrases. its only incorrect if youre a time traveler from the 1800s or some shit

words can have many different meanings depending on how you use them. all the ways the autist wants to use them are correct as well

>>51757846
It's not a problem that language changes. What that means, though, is that you shouldn't use words and phrases that are currently in-between meanings, because people won't know which one you intend. When the newer meaning has won out definitively over the old one, to the point where nobody will even wonder if you're using the old one, then you can start using it. But when both meanings remain in common use for a long time (like with shit like the word "biweekly,") then you just have to stay the fuck away from both of them.

>>51758361
>biweekly
You mean fortnightly?

>>51758385
Clearly he means twice-weekly.

>>51758032
Eh, correct... incorrect... all semantics. Just as the right use of metaphors is dependent on wether you use the old or new definition, so is finding it correct or incorrect. I don't particularly like literaly becoming figuratively, because it changed in my lifetime. Am i correct or incorrect? I don't know. But I do know I'm not going to be persuaded by someone who takes great liberties at interpreting what the guy means and then calls him an autist. Particularly if they use the word autist wrong.

>>51758361
how is the old meaning going to be snuffed out by the new meaning if no one is using the new meaning anon? words will basically always have multiple meanings. you just have to deal with that

if you cant get your point across through communication, its not the words fault

>>51752349

A lot of metaphors only work because we're used to hearing them and can infer their meaning from context. Someone who just learned what metaphors are and really wanted to use them would probably make up his own, and they'd only work in his own head, especially if his culture attributed different made-up traits to plants and animals as everyone else's culture. If he just out of the blue called someone a dragonfly or a heron, you'd have no idea what trait he was attributing to that person. It might well be a trait that dragonflies or herons don't actually have.

>>51758424
youre taking my own point and repeating it back to me like its some great insight on youre point. i already told you that language isnt a science the only "right or wrong" there is happens from if you communicate your idea or not

>>51758646
your part*

>>51758608
Because most people are not going to follow that advice - especially ignorant people who don't even know that there's a meaning different from the one in their heads. Ignorance is the cause of most changes in language.

If you choose a very ambiguous word and you get misinterpreted, it is very much your fault. The burden is on you to choose the least ambiguous language possible.

>>51757449
The phrase "begging the question" was originally a mistranslation of the latin for "raises the question," so whoever fucked it up in the first place is to blame, not the person saying the phrase.

Seriously, that one is crap.

"The exception that proves the rule" is a legitimate complaint to have, but people don't think of rules as inviolable anymore, so...

>>51759050
the way normal people use it is good enough for me. normally they are just loose on what they mean by rule. its more like the exception that proves the trend

"women make shitty doctors, thats why you never see any"
"no women can be great doctors i knew of one once"
"oh so it is possible for a women to become a doctor if they want, no one is stopping them, there are just very few female doctors because they suck at it"

since if there were literally no female doctors you could easily give other reasons why there are none, like they are being prevented from becoming them by law or something

i know thats not exactly what the phrase means but thats normally how i think of it when people say it most of the time

File: 1407510520374.webm (3MB, 478x358px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 478x358px

>>51758764
>the burden is on you to choose the least ambiguous language possible.
Not the guy you were talking with, but yes, that's usually accomplished with context. "I dusted the counter with flour" and "I dusted the counter with a brush" have pretty obvious intended interpretations, even though the parts of speech are the same in both and "dust" takes opposite meanings.
It's definitely the speaker's fault if they're misinterpreted, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that the listener should go out of their way to assume an obviously wrong definition ("hurr hurr you crumbled up a brush and spread it over the counter???"), nor that they shouldn't accept a speaker's clarification.
webm unrelated