Does this mean that I will no longer be able to smugly remind people that there is only one 's' in "daylight saving time"? It was really the only reason I could see for keeping the biannual time change around.
It depends on whether you have a prescriptive or descriptive view of the language. Usually, smug people who enjoy correcting other’s speech lean prescriptive.
Even though the prescriptive view is wrong people still have it? ;)
I'd love for one of them to show the original centuries old definition of English that they are prescribing from.
Or put another way, if the prescriptive view is nothing but a descriptive view of language from a few decades back then essentially you have a descriptive view that tries to ignore that time isn't constant.
I'm not a fan of a prescriptive view of language. But at the same time I'm also not a fan of letting morons decide the course of things. Just because people use phrases wrong, or can't be bothered to learn how to spell doesn't mean the "correct" spelling should just change to accommodate them. Why doesn't everyone else get a vote? Otherwise what's the point of spell checkers, or dictionaries, or English class at all?
Having a standard to hold our selves to is not having a prescriptive approach to language. Prescriptive language is what the French do. They have a government office that decides the official rules of French and official documents have to follow them. For example, even though everyone calls a Computer a Computer pretty much everywhere in the world with variation on spelling, the French government has to call it an ordinateur.
The point of language is to facilitate communication. To do so there needs to be a standard. You don't have to legally enforce it, it should be voluntary. Freedom of speech and all that. But I reject the copout that "language evolves, deal with it".
> Even though the prescriptive view is wrong people still have it? ;)
Yup. Some of us do so quite consciously and intentionally, and knowing it is doomed to fail -- so, if you will, quixotically[1].
"Why on Earth would you want to do that?", I hear you ask. I'm glad you did -- let me explain: It's a delaying defence, intended to slow down the enem^W speed of change. We see that slowing down as a good thing, because it increases intelligibility over time. You, as a speaker of English, can with some effort read and understand Shakespeare and (hiss rough contemporary) the King James translation of the Bible... But not much further back; Chaucer is a struggle, and Beowulf just gibberish to you. Icelanders, OTOH, have no more problems with the Viking sagas, written down about the time of Chaucer, than you do with Shakespeare; and had they any litterature written down in the time of Beowulf, I'd imagine it would be no worse for them than Chaucer is for you. To Swedes, on the other other hand, the writings of Gustav II Adolf (not to mention the chronicles of his grandfather Gustaf I Vasa's historian) are Chaucer-level difficult even though they're from about the time of Shakespeare (or less than a century before); actual Chaucer-era writings like the medieval laws of king Magnus are Beowulf-level gibberish; nineteenth-century poetry -- heck, even the 1917 Bible or the prose of Strindberg, who IIRC died just a few years before that translation! -- seem to be as hard to grasp as Shakespeare is to you.
And this shit seems to just be accelerating; kids nowadays have a hard time not just with Strindberg, but with novels I enjoyed in my youth -- written in the 1940s, -60s, or even later! So, in the hope that my grandkids (if ever I have any) will understand what the heck I'm saying to them and I what they're telling me, I fight this hopeless rearguard action, willingly sacrificing myself to the slings and arrows of mindlessly laissez-faire anti-prescriptivists for the greater good of mankind.
So slowing Swedish down to the rate of decay--eh, development -- of English is my primary goal. But, hey, while I'm at it anyway, why not try to improve the cross-time communication power of English, too?
There, hope that answers your questions?
___
[1]: Except I guess the Knight of La Mancha didn't know that last bit. Unless, I guess, if you want to argue that deep down he really had to know that all along.
There are objectively prescriptive (codified) languages.
In Slovakia we have laws giving a certain public institution the responsibility to define what are the proper rules to use the language, including maintaining the dictionary of all the allowed words and their meanings.
Anything beyond that (with the exception of e.g. scientific terms) is objectively incorrect slovak.
Languages aren't logical pre-determined constructions (unless they're intentionally designed, such as Esperanto).
Humans create languages. And they constantly change and evolve, including new words, letters, grammar, etc. Consider Old English versus Modern English [0]. Or even software companies that have become nouns or verbs in common parlance (e.g. "to google").
I get it, sort of. In that case I just tell myself "it's hyperbole for lazy people" and move on. "Could care less", though, that one I cannot reconcile.
This is going to be my headcanon for why people do this (though it's more likely laziness/carelessness). This usage seems to be becoming more and more common, so this will help me pretend it makes sense and move on.
I'll take the bait here and be the one to point out that the usage of literally to mean "figuratively" is recorded in dictionaries at least 100 years old, and there are probably even older examples of that usage.
Literally doesn't mean "figuratively". It either means "literally", or it is used for emphasis, like "really" or "deeply" etc. But it is never used with the express purpose of meaning "figuratively", i.e. "not literally".
That is, no one is saying "I am literally dying to know" to try to communicate the fact that they are not, in fact, dying to know. Instead, the difference between "I am dying to know" and "I am literally dying to know" is one of emphasis. The second is almost perfectly equivalent to "I am really dying to know" or "I am very much dying to know".
By contrast, "I am figuratively dying to know" would imply that you are specifically not dying to know, which everyone understands perfectly well.
If the context is that it's been a handful of minutes, we don't say my usage is wrong; we definitely don't say that "sometimes days means minutes" and fret about how anyone will communicated time. We say that sometimes people exaggerate.
You can still object, if you wish, on stylistic grounds. You can object that you'd prefer we keep "literally" apart from some standard uses of words lest we allow inappropriate ambiguity. But none of that means anyone is using "literally" to mean "figuratively".
There's no such thing as communication without ambiguity while using natural language. In your particular example, any interpretation depends crucially on what "that" might be referring to. It could refer to an animal, in which case you may mean that it seems to be suffering from a mental illness (maybe it has rabies) OR that it is unable to think clearly (it is insane with hunger, or excitement). It could be referring to an action, which may mean that it is either the action of someone suffering from a mental illness, or the action of someone being temporarily unable to think clearly, or it is an absurd action.
These are all literal meanings of insane. Of course, if we add figurative meanings we can increase the ambiguity further.
However, your criticism applies similarly to words like "truly" - if I say "that is truly insane", do I mean that it is insane in one of the literal senses of the word? Or the figurative uses? Am I just emphasizing either of these meanings, or do I feel a need to confirm that I am not lying?
Either way we take it, though, "literally" can never be replaced with "figuratively" without altering the meaning of a phrase. In it's use as an intensifier, it does NOT mean "figuratively", it means "very".
Also, looking on Merriam-Webster, they clearly discuss this and reach the same conclusion. They also mention that this meaning for emphasis appears as early as the 18th century, in the works of Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, Mark Twain.
That is a silly position. "Literally" has become an intensifier, like so many other words in the English language. It is no different from "truly" or "verily" or "really", and the path it took from its literal meaning to its intensifier status is identical.
Stop dreaming - we didn't allow that level of pedantry even when DST was a thing. "Daylight savings time" might be an eggcorn - but it's more accepted in conversation than "daylight saving time" at this point.
I have an armchair-theory that different pronunciations require different amounts of work, and that the less-effort versions win over time. Particularly certain transitions from one syllable to the next.
Maybe not a great example, but "savings-time" seems to require slightly less work than "saving-time". At least for me.
As uh bahn an bread Bahstunian I'd ahgue dat reginal dieuhlecks ken cause ovahuhl drifs in prahnunciashen ohvah time. Baht thas jus me. Diffrin fraysus will folluh da culltrull kahntexts dey ehmehged frahm.
Maybe the legislators will make things even more confusing by defining daylight time as "standard time"! (Because it will be the, well, standard time.)
Isn't that just changing the time zone and abolishing daylight savings?
"Senate votes"
What does this mean? Does it take effect forever starting from today? Does Senate have authority to actually enact the change or is that some other dude that actually flips the lever?
Executive orders are only the use of powers given the the President previously by Congress or, through the Constitution, the people. The President has no other powers.
The U.S. has a bicameral legislature and a presidential veto, so the House of Representatives would also have to vote for the same bill, then the president would have to sign it. According to the text of the bill[1], it would take effect immediately, but there would be no practical effect until November 6, when DST is scheduled to end.
True, that's the normal process but if the President vetoes the bill Congress can override the veto by 2/3 majority in both chambers.
IIRC the Senate passed the bill unanimously. If the House passes the bill by a large majority it predicts a veto would be overridden. In such cases even if inclined to veto, the President typically acknowledges defeat and signs the bill into law.
It's redefining the offsets from UTC for the zones, for standard time. And also repeals all of 15 USC 260a http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:2... a.k.a. Section 3 of the Uniform Time Act of 1966. Ergo, the 'D' in all the time zones goes away.
