
Musical sensor shows bad medicine plays false note - dnetesn
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-sensors-literally-music-ears.html
======
unwind
Meta: The original title is much better ("Musical sensor shows bad medicine
plays false note").

The submitted title is using "literally" in the inverse meaning
("figuratively"), which is very confusing.

The described sensor (it's just a single design, not multiple that as the
submitted title suggests) has sound as its output, and detects changes in
density by changing the pitch of the tone generated. This is not music, and
the _sensor itself_ is not music (which would be the proper meaning of
"literally" here).

Or maybe I'm just old and stupid (and, of course, a non-native speaker at
that) to find this annoying.

~~~
mrspeaker
I think the definition of "literally" as its opposite is already included in
the OED. Literally now literally means figuratively. Thanks English.

But I hear "literally" used a lot these days as a random emphasis that has no
real meaning. Hopefully people will literally over-use it to the point where
it literally sounds as jarring to use as "literally instead of figuratively"
literally sounds to us.

THEN we can tell them to get off our figurative lawns!

~~~
explainplease
> I think the definition of "literally" as its opposite is already included in
> the OED. Literally now literally means figuratively.

No, it doesn't.

Some words change meaning over time, as language naturally changes.

That is not the case with this word. This word is fundamental, like a
gatekeeper to discussion of reality. It can no more mean its opposite than can
"light" mean "dark", or "good" mean "evil."

> Thanks English.

English is not a person. English didn't do anything. By saying this, you
deflect blame from those who are actively working to disrupt our use of
language and corrupt our discourse.

The OED is not in charge of the English language. Just because someone who
works there decided to rubber-stamp a definition into being doesn't mean that
a word literally has the opposite meaning. If it means that people are already
commonly misusing it, then it's all the more reason to stand up for the
correct meaning. If we lose the ability to refer to reality, to distinguish
from fantasy, then how will we even discern them in our own minds?

This is not centuries ago, before electronic communication, when trends took
decades or centuries to travel. Today, you can post on Twitter one minute, and
be world-famous (or infamous) the next. Use that power to make language
better, stronger, and more meaningful. There are already enough people
throwing in the towel, and others actively working to destroy.

~~~
Nadya
Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you.
Literally is a contronym and depending on which linguist you ask, it's
actually two words that happen to be spelled and sound the same but each has
their own meaning - a homonym. Whether literally is a contronym or a homonym
is up to the linguist you ask - some might happily say it is both!

When you clip something - are you attaching it or cutting it off? When you
scan something are you reading word for word or are you skim reading? When you
set an argument on the table are you presenting it or shelving it for later?
If your actions are transparent - are they invisible or obvious?

When you puzzle over a puzzle you're solving a problem.

The most wonderful thing about languages, from a linguistic anthropological
view, is precisely how they change over time as the living generations shape
and mold language to their liking.

~~~
explainplease
> Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you.

As I said in the previous comment, "English is not a person."

Let's look at a good source: Webster:

1\. "According to the primary and natural import of words; _not figuratively_
; as, a man and his wife can not be literally one flesh." (emphasis added) No
comment required.

2\. "With close adherence to words; word by word." For this definition, the
given example helps: "So wild and ungovernable a poet can not be translated
literally. --Dryden." Clearly this definition is not the opposite of the
first.

> When you clip something - are you attaching it or cutting it off?

As I said in the previous comment, there are some words that have multiple,
contradictory meanings. "Literally" is not one of them; by its nature, it
cannot be. If you disagree with me, you should argue this point rather than
cite irrelevant examples.

> The most wonderful thing about languages, from a linguistic anthropological
> view, is precisely how they change over time as the living generations shape
> and mold language to their liking.

Linguistic anthropology cannot confer wonderfulness on anything, for it merely
observes and catalogs; it does not pass judgment. My argument does not lie
within its purview.

The problem arises as a living generation loses touch with reality, and as
certain entities strive to confuse it by muddling their language. It's not
important whether "table" means "to consider" or "to not consider." It _is_
important whether "literally" still means "literally", especially in this day
and age, as the pace of change is ever increasing. As fragile, finite, foolish
humans, we desperately need solid handles on reality to cling to. Those who
would encourage us to render the word useless are doing a disservice to us
all. You would do well to not be one of them.

~~~
Nadya
_> As I said in the previous comment, there are some words that have multiple,
contradictory meanings. "Literally" is not one of them; by its nature, it
cannot be. If you disagree with me, you should argue this point rather than
cite irrelevant examples._

Literally is quite literally one of those words and you've yet to cite any
reason why it isn't or can't be. You can't just cite one dictionary that you
happen to agree with (Webster) while ignoring other dictionaries you don't
(Oxford).

Words don't have a _nature_ \- language is a man made construct and ultimately
defined by cultures which are ever changing. Changing cultures directly
results in changing languages. Words being adopted from one language to
another is the direct result of mixing cultures. Words changing meaning is a
direct result of a changing culture. Languages are a living construct - with
the exception of conlangs - nobody sat down and designed and defined entire
languages and, arguably, even conlangs eventually adapt to their culture over
time so being designed doesn't prevent it from change over time.

There is a reason there is an "Olde English".

------
EADGBE
Just make sure we're calibrating these crude instruments to the same pitch.

I'd hate to have a medical mishap because one instrument is tuned to A450, and
another A432.

~~~
_nalply
If that is a problem, then let prescribe the following process flow by the
app: first sound the empty tube, then the tube filled with water, and only
then the tube filled with the test liquid. The first two checks should catch
any miscalibrations, I think.

