lol. right?
at “literally” i draw the line though 
. maybe thats because im not a native and in german “buchstäblich” truly has only the one meaning. so not that radical after all… but also not that young anymore, so it might just be ok to stick to the literal meaning (or is it the first figurative meaning) of “literally” 
.
Yeah literally is a funny one… There are some people who use it ironically to mock the ignorant, but unfortunately that just encourages the ignorant to use it wrong even more.
there is the interesting precedent of “let”, as used in tennis (when a serve touches the net but still drops correctly on the opponents side). supposedly “let” meant “to hinder” in older germanic languages, which is quite the opposite of what “let” means now, which is something along the lines of “to allow”. the original meaning, in this case, has been pushed back to a single niche application.
maybe the first use of “literally” is at the verge of extiction too 
.
How odd. I literally can’t even. 
I think the largest problem is that there is no new word to replace the literal meaning that “literally” has. Especially sad, since it makes it more difficult to describe what a word (such as “literally”) means without the word “literally”.
This reminds me a little of autological / heterological words. It has a nice liar paradox popping up when questioning whether “heterological” is heterological. “Literally” literally means in a literal manner. So does it?
so in other words: is literally used literally? or: does literally have a literal meaning? (if i understood correctly)
hmmm… yes and no. since its etymologycal meaning is “according to the letter(s)” or “(as) in the letter(s)”, id say that it is used figuratively. the letters themselves dont mean anything, words, sentences and texts do. so at the least we are dealing with a synekdoche.
at the same time though, from todays viewpoint, id argue that it is ok to speak of the “literal” meaning of literally 
since, 1. its always been used that way and no massive figurative jump is involved, to the point where its figurative character has been all but lost, and 2. there is another meaning that is very clearly not literal.
to find some figurative root in a words etymology is really no surprise btw. figurative use of words/language isnt some edge case of meaning restricted to poetry, but fundamental to construction of meaning in general.
The difference between bots and robots is simple. Robots have a body, but bots are just code.
That means, in case we are living inside a simulation, there would be no difference 
Language is usage. If people are unambiguously and easily understood saying ‘robot’ and not ‘bot’ in their given context, then they are not using the word wrong. With the words themselves being so similar in addition, this is extremely nitpicky.
After all, how do you think words get their meaning in the first place?
I disagree with this, but I’ll just agree to move on, as at the end of the day it’s a matter of opinion.
It may be nitpicky, but my main point is that it bothers me.
Other things that bother me (and in my opinion should bother any educated adult) are the incorrect usage of:
there / their / they’re
to / too / two
than / then
affect / effect
These words are also similar, but I wouldn’t say that it’s okay to use the incorrect word.
Maybe I’m just a nitpicker, and to be perfectly honest, I’m okay with that.
The English language is only defined by its usage. If you feel that is a matter of opinion, then it is an opinion that is shared by the major authoritative references on the language. OED, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, etc. all seek to only document usage, rather than dictate definitions.
I think it’s terribly ironic that this argument revolves around robot vs bot and the applicability to software. Robot is a relatively new word (Google says 1920s), and software is maybe even a newer concept (in the broader public psyche, if we discount 19th century punch card looms/hypothetical difference engines as being too niche). The shortening of robot to “bot” is well established and the perceived rule that only “bot” can be applied to software could only from an observed bias from very recent usage (and even the universality of that is suspect, e.g., see the “robots.txt” example that I mention above).
Basically, you are arguing for an apparent “rule” that most likely only emerged from very recent usage (in the form of a common, but not universal bias).
Popular usage can truly effect change, and accepting this can help avoid experiencing a negative affect.
I don’t disagree with that. I only disagree with bot and robot being interchangeable. I see that the quoted section made that unclear and have edited the post to reflect this.
It is my opinion that the words bot and robot no longer share the same meaning. This is not an opinion that I alone hold by the way.
I hope I won’t offend anyone, but this whole discussion reminded me of this daily mash story…
Not offended in the least.
In my defense though, I don’t correct people’s grammar mistakes. I just silently judge them
I was genuinely laughing out loud. I think this is hilarious. For me it has nothing to do with being better than anybody else. These two lines captured my feelings best:
“If grammar people just learned to let things go sometimes, where would we be as a civilisation? Just fighting in mud, probably.”
“The reason I loudly vocalise my frustration about a writer confusing ‘that’ and which’ is because of my passion for good English.
Yes, a million times over, yes! (High five’s RubyMineshaft)
I do, and I’m proud of it. Consider it activism. I care about a dying world and will do whatever I can to educate others. English isn’t just a topic taught in school. I personally think that communication is the most important skill that any human being can have. Without it, we are all trapped inside our own heads. I could write an essay on why it is important and the beauty that is possible when people treat it with respect and care.
Then again, I love a good book, well thought out debates, invigorating discussion, and people who think deeply about anything. The world is full of lazy people who can’t be bothered to speak entire words anymore. I refused to accept that “this is just how things are” and “the language is defined by the people’s usage in modern times”. I feel like a Wordsmith in a world of Scribblers. And I’m a damn proud of it 
As someone who spent a significant portion of his adult life teaching English grammar it’s difficult for me to not feel this way as well. I just find that people who aren’t looking to be taught don’t generally appreciate being taught. Crying shame really 
@teapoweredrobot I just noticed your username. I certainly hope you have a physical body to go along with that 
Yes, but I have had to explain to people in games that I am not a bot…
But, are you tea powered?
its not dying though, just changing. anyone is withing their right to fight change, but ultimately
change is in the nature of language.
oh absolutely, undoubtedly, 100% true. Id add that caring for language doesnt have to mean caring for preserving language, those are 2 different things. in fact the example that caused this thread is showing the opposite case. it seems like in due time a distinction will be necessary between “bot” and “robot” where previously it wasnt. caring about language here reads as accepting change.
how people use language will ultimately decide what is perceived as correct and what isnt, that is just plain true. but noone ever said we all use language the same… or even for that matter, that we have to be of one mind about it.
a group of people can easily decide on rules only they will follow, no problem there. these things happen daily in scientific languages and different social groups. the members of the group will understand each other just fine as long as they use the same rules. grammatical variants, changing the use of words, introducing words and even mannerisms, abbreviations, pronounciation, ea can be part of that ruleset. stating that what is happening there is wrong gets us nowhere. what a group that uses divergent rules will possibly have done though, is risk being misunderstood, repremanded or even excluded by speakers who are not part of that group (which unfortunately sometimes is exactly what people mean by speaking differently).
in that sense, nick is totally within his right to use robot to describe a bot… or a banana for that matter… as is @RubyMineshaft to speak his mind about it. what matters is wether his use is accepted and wether he is understood, 1. by his audience and 2. by people of other groups joining his audience. if he is indeed not understood, then it is allowed to say he made a mistake. and i dare say, that a smart individual will change her/his language use once that starts happening frequently. scratch that, thin ice there 
it is important to add that it isnt always the variant with the most users that wins out. prestige has a lot to do with it, as have other factors. uses from scientific languages have far greater odds to become the norm than local or social variants.
sometimes two meanings can also happily coexist and it is absolutely possible for a word to mean one thing in a certain context and another in a different one. football means different things to different people… neither are wrong. that is especially true for scientific meanings, which are most important when it is necessary to distinguish where it wouldnt be very important under ordinary circumstances.