That definition genuinely gives me cancer. I seriously, 100% am going to die now because dictionary editors don't seem to grasp that this is simply a "tone" of ironically over-emphasized speaking similar to sarcasm, and not a new definition of one word. I'm 250%honestly in chemotherapy now because they don't get that. Veritably, indubitably, unarguably cooked now. Thanks, dictionary editors.
The stronger player was handicapped when they gave their opponent a handicap, and yet they still won; they now held in their hands their prize that was the match's prize.
Dickens did it. And people have been doing it since the 1700s.
Not to mention, if you're using the word "literally" to mean "something that actually happened", you are also using the word wrong. Because it means "relating to or expressed in letters".
I also notice people complain about "literally", but they never complain about "really" which also gets used in the same ways even though it means the opposite.
And I've noticed people do it as a substitute for intelligence. They complain about these things to seem intelligent. To seem knowledgeable. But when confronted with knowledge that contradicts the complaint, they try to dismiss the knowledge rather than adjust their point of view. Similar with fewer/less. These words mean the same thing. There are no rules as to when to use one or the other. There was the preference of one guy, who even said that he had no reason for it, he just liked it. And people took that as an ironclad rule. Or the gif debate. People try to invent all of these rules, but get pissy when you point out all the places where English does not follow those rules.
There have been thousands of years of written language, and the worst thing that ever happened was the invention of the dictionary, which enabled generations of prescriptivists to pretend that word meanings can't change once they're written down, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Maybe look up 'hidebound' sometime.
People are generally good at context. Tone, expression, etc, all of these things are parts of communication that do matter. Assume your audience is at least as smart as you are.
They changed the definition of 'literally' to fit the modern meaning. You can no longer call it abuse now as the misuse fits the new definition.
See definition 2 here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/literal...
That definition genuinely gives me cancer. I seriously, 100% am going to die now because dictionary editors don't seem to grasp that this is simply a "tone" of ironically over-emphasized speaking similar to sarcasm, and not a new definition of one word. I'm 250% honestly in chemotherapy now because they don't get that. Veritably, indubitably, unarguably cooked now. Thanks, dictionary editors.
The stronger player was handicapped when they gave their opponent a handicap, and yet they still won; they now held in their hands their prize that was the match's prize.
Literally false: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally
Use of literally in, well, the non-literal sense dates back hundreds of years.
I literally had no idea.
Dickens did it. And people have been doing it since the 1700s.
Not to mention, if you're using the word "literally" to mean "something that actually happened", you are also using the word wrong. Because it means "relating to or expressed in letters".
I also notice people complain about "literally", but they never complain about "really" which also gets used in the same ways even though it means the opposite.
And I've noticed people do it as a substitute for intelligence. They complain about these things to seem intelligent. To seem knowledgeable. But when confronted with knowledge that contradicts the complaint, they try to dismiss the knowledge rather than adjust their point of view. Similar with fewer/less. These words mean the same thing. There are no rules as to when to use one or the other. There was the preference of one guy, who even said that he had no reason for it, he just liked it. And people took that as an ironclad rule. Or the gif debate. People try to invent all of these rules, but get pissy when you point out all the places where English does not follow those rules.
There have been thousands of years of written language, and the worst thing that ever happened was the invention of the dictionary, which enabled generations of prescriptivists to pretend that word meanings can't change once they're written down, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Maybe look up 'hidebound' sometime.
What would you suggest using instead. Actually?
People are generally good at context. Tone, expression, etc, all of these things are parts of communication that do matter. Assume your audience is at least as smart as you are.
1 reply →
Truly?
But come on, that's been going on for literally centuries.