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.

  • iglou@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    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.

    if anything it seems pretty obvious that any linguistic drift occurring is in the opposite direction of your preference.

    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.

    I’m right and I’m winning, cope.

    Lmao. You didn’t pick up on the maturity part, did you?

    • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • iglou@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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!

        • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Linguistic drift towards being less comprehensible is objectively bad, fucking duh

          • iglou@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            That’s a subjective observation. Most people have no problem understanding a word that has different meanings (so, almost every single word) based on context.

            Anyway, this has been fun but I’m all out of time to waste on you! Good luck to you :)

            • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Most people have no trouble walking, the invention of the wheelchair was still a step in the right direction because people exist for whom that is not true. A more comprehensible language is objectively better whether it makes a difference for you or not.