3 ms·
What I take issue with is that there’s no verb in the second part of that sentence. The overuse of “literally” is one thing, but the fact that, “literally” has
by nickysielicki 6y ago
What I take issue with is that there’s no verb in the second part of that sentence. The overuse of “literally” is one thing, but the fact that, “literally” has come to mean, “literally [there are]” bugs me a hell of a lot more.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dahart 6y ago> the fact that, “literally” has come to mean, “literally [there are]” bugs me a hell of a lot more. I think you’re jumping to an incorrect conclusion. There are numerous sentences in the article (and others from NOAA) with no verb, it has nothing to do with the word literally. This isn’t a piece of literary writing, it’s abbreviated language intended for a very narrow field of professional readers. There are many examples of other professional communication that similarly do not follow normal conventions for casual writing nor conversation. Look up airline or boat pilot transcripts, or medical science papers, or HAM radio users... a huge number of niche fields that have their own sub-languages.