Quote:
Originally Posted by skinmaan
Sorry if I had a bit of a chip on my shoulder about this. I've been berated over this more than once. Does it count as actual irony that people who have a problem with the "evolution" of the definition of the word "irony" have no problem whatsoever with changes in the meaning of the word "marriage?"
(Please, don't devolve into a political discussion here. I merely site this as an actual situation I found myself in where someone was okay changing the meaning one and not the other. Yes, I can get into strange conversations from time to time.)
|
I not making a blanket objection to the idea of meaning shifting in a living language.
In cases of extending the meaning of "marriage" or, similarly extending "theft" to include infringing on certain IP rights, you can agree or disagree with the reasoning, but there WAS reasoning. Someone(s) who knew what those words meant or conveyed, saw a parallel, or a connotation they wanted to apply, and intentionally started to make that extension. Right or wrong is not the issue here.
That's totally different that using "literally" to mean figuratively or "irony" to mean coincidence. Those are cases of people just being clueless about the meanings of the words they used and other people clueless following them, and no one caring enough to get it straight.
The first kind of shift may only serve people on one side of an issue, but the second kind serves no one and hurts us all.