Since it’s widely accepted that the word “literally” can be used to add emphasis, we need another word that can be used when you want to make it clear that you really mean “literally” in the original sense.
Since it’s widely accepted that the word “literally” can be used to add emphasis, we need another word that can be used when you want to make it clear that you really mean “literally” in the original sense.
Welcome to languages, where the definitions aren’t static, and the meanings change over time.
This is brought to you by the word angnail. Yes angnail, not hangnail. Okay fine it’s hangnail now.
Change is expected and important.
The word literal is an equally important job to do.
It’s fine to make literal not mean literal, but then instead of needing a word that means not literal, we’re gonna need a word that means literal.
Alright, guess maybe it becomes literally literal or not literally literal.
Come to think of it, maybe we should just say not literally literal for things that aren’t actually literal and are just intending to be emphasized.
Linguistic drift happens over generations, this is just illiteracy
So you mean, if this use of ‘literally’ had been around for, say, several centuries, you’d consider it acceptable?
Lol still no, the article you linked makes it clear that in all that time the situation hasn’t changed at all, the primary definition is the same and the secondary usage is the same and the criticism is the same
Your comment was purely about these changes taking generations to happen, this is something that has been in the work since the 18th century. It’s a perfectly typical change, not a sudden one based in illiteracy.
No, this is something that has not changed at all since the 18th century, learn to read
You are so confidently incorrect and unable to recognize your error. I invite you to re-read the whole article. This is a use that first surfaced in the 18th century and has slowly become more common, with an adoption peak recently. That’s how languages evolve.
In any case, definitely not about illiteracy, which, once again, is your original claim.
Gain some maturity.
The primary definition is unchanged for several centuries, the secondary definition has always been secondary and is more controversial than ever, if anything it seems pretty obvious that any linguistic drift occurring is in the opposite direction of your preference. I’m right and I’m winning, cope.
Nothing in what you said invalidates anything that I said. Nothing in what you said suggests illiteracy for the secondary use. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension and your argumentation consistency.
No. It is more common than ever, which is why it is also controversial. And for the record, I don’t like the secondary meaning at all and I do not use the word this way. But, I recognize that it exists and I’m not sour and elitist about it as you are.
Lmao. You didn’t pick up on the maturity part, did you?