3 ms·
I appreciate that you're trying to be charitable to the author, but this sounds more like a retroactive justification than a new and valid usage. Yes, I know t
by nerdponx 5y ago
I appreciate that you're trying to be charitable to the author, but this sounds more like a retroactive justification than a new and valid usage.
Yes, I know that plenty of our words today evolved out of mistakes, solecisms, misspellings, etc. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to be kind-of correct.
- oarsinsync 5y ago> Yes, I know that plenty of our words today evolved out of mistakes, solecisms, misspellings, etc. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to be kind-of correct. This is literally the worst misuse of the language. (This is a joke about the way the word literally has evolved, badly)
- fknorangesite 5y ago> the word literally has evolved, badly How do you feel about the words "really" and "very"? I never really understood this fad of harping on the metaphorical usage of "literally" - it's hardly a new development: > The use of literally in a fashion that is hyperbolic or metaphoric is not new—evidence of this use dates back to 1769. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...
- nerdponx 5y agoWhat's different about "literally" is that people mostly do know what it means, and it's more of a rhetorical device or figure of speech than a simple mistake. As the article you quoted says, it's "hyperbolic" and "metaphorical", not solecistic.