> Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you. As I said in the previous comment, "English is not a person." Let's look at a goo

> Oh, do I have a bit of linguistic fun for you! English disagrees with you. As I said in the previous comment, "English is not a person." Let's look at a good source: Webster: 1. "According to the primary and natural import of words; not figuratively; as, a man and his wife can not be literally one flesh." (emphasis added) No comment required. 2. "With close adherence to words; word by word." For this definition, the given example helps: "So wild and ungovernable a poet can not be translated literally. --Dryden." Clearly this definition is not the opposite of the first. > When you clip something - are you attaching it or cutting it off? As I said in the previous comment, there are some words that have multiple, contradictory meanings. "Literally" is not one of them; by its nature, it cannot be. If you disagree with me, you should argue this point rather than cite irrelevant examples. > The most wonderful thing about languages, from a linguistic anthropological view, is precisely how they change over time as the living generations shape and mold language to their liking. Linguistic anthropology cannot confer wonderfulness on anything, for it merely observes and catalogs; it does not pass judgment. My argument does not lie within its purview. The problem arises as a living generation loses touch with reality, and as certain entities strive to confuse it by muddling their language. It's not important whether "table" means "to consider" or "to not consider." It is important whether "literally" still means "literally", especially in this day and age, as the pace of change is ever increasing. As fragile, finite, foolish humans, we desperately need solid handles on reality to cling to. Those who would encourage us to render the word useless are doing a disservice to us all. You would do well to not be one of them.