3 ms·
I understand that English is defined by those who speak it, not by committee, and that the colloquial use of the word "literally" as an intensifier is widesprea
by jjoonathan 7y ago
I understand that English is defined by those who speak it, not by committee, and that the colloquial use of the word "literally" as an intensifier is widespread. I still think the word "literally" is worth fighting for. It would be a pity to turn a word with such precise, significant, and unique meaning into yet another mediocre intensifier, of which we have dozens. In doing so, we would not merely add a definition, we would destroy the old one.
So, I'm with GP: the word "literally" doesn't fit the context and ought to be replaced.
- malnourish 7y ago"Literally" has been used in the contemporary colloquial sense since at least 1769[0]. [0]: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061 https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061 definition 1c
- jjoonathan 7y agoThen it has been worth fighting for since at least 1769.
- malnourish 7y agoI think the battle has long been lost
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoThis. I'm all for treating language as the living thing it is. However, "literally" is a very useful word and there's noting else quite like it. If "literally" can mean both literally and the exact opposite of literally, it becomes devoid of meaning.