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.
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?
Nothing anywhere in this thread or anywhere else indicates that misuse of the word literal was the result of anything other than illiteracy, only that this specific trend in illiteracy isn’t new. Doing shit wrong for 2 centuries doesn’t make it any less stupid.
There is no right or wrong with expanding a language. A language is never set in stone, it evolves as people use it. If a large amount of people use a word a certain way, no one has the authority to say that it is wrong. This sort of change is what makes a language alive. Only dead languages are set in stone.
If you disagree with this, then you should use old english, not this peasant modern variant we all use. Have a bit of consistency!
“Telling me I’m wrong is immature”
No, your insulting and (baseless) bragging are.