5 ms·
"Literally" is not incorrect. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally "Literally" can mean "vi
by theseatoms 11y ago
"Literally" is not incorrect.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
"Literally" can mean "virtually," or "figuratively."
- tertius 11y agoYes and this is unfortunate but modern.
- dudul 11y agoFrom your link: "Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary." Seems literally incorrect to me.
- pklausler 11y agoWe need a new word that non-figuratively means "literally", then.
- phpnode 11y agoI propose "figuratively".
- pklausler 11y agoSorry to reply to my own post. It bothered me that I literally knew no good substitute in English for "literally". Did some research, and the best that I found is the phrase "without exaggeration", which actually seems usable to me and might be more likely to be understood than "literally" is today. "I got literally hundreds of bug reports today" may not be appreciated correctly (a listener who doesn't know me might think that I got 12 and I'm just whining), but "Speaking without exaggeration, I got hundreds of bug reports today" seems airtight. Or maybe it's time to import >>wörtlich<< into English.
- derefr 11y agoYou don't need to throw out a word just because it's become an autoantonym[1]; many words are. To cleave; to hew; to screen; etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym
- pklausler 11y agoMy favorite: "oversight".
- nsns 11y agonice, so it literally means its opposite as well.
- massysett 11y agoThis sort of usage destroys the entire word. If one word has two opposing meanings it's ambiguous to ever use it at all. Language rot via imprecision.