> That sounds like what you're doing with trying to lock down "literally". The "literally" thing is particularly egregious, because the new definition is the o

> That sounds like what you're doing with trying to lock down "literally". The "literally" thing is particularly egregious, because the new definition is the opposite of the old one. Look, I dig metaphor; I'd be OK with "literally" being used to mean "metaphorically" if it was done occasionally and ironically. When it becomes the preferred word to replace "very", it's natural to resist. > He was blown up by his own bomb. Oh I see, thanks; that's bewildered me since forever. It makes my point, though; Shakespeare may be a marvellous composer of iambic pentameters, but he's not a good reference for modern english. > what English you find actually "correct" The correct register to adopt depends on the circumstances. As it happens, I never adopt a register in which "literally" means "figuratively". In speech I use a vernacular register (and I curse more than I would prefer). But in HN comments, I think it's often (not always) helpful to try to avoid ambiguity, and use language precisely. Not everyone here understands puns and allusions in English.