4 ms·
Depending on the word, there may be very good reason to push back. For example, many people do push back against the definition of the word "literally" that mea
by jsmith45 4y ago
Depending on the word, there may be very good reason to push back. For example, many people do push back against the definition of the word "literally" that means "figuratively" (e.g. Stoner: "I'm so high right now I'm literally in space."), because if that definition becomes common enough it impedes communication where the word literally is intended to be literal.
I'm not sure what word your are referencing, and if there is any good reason for such pushback in this circumstance.
- bawolff 4y agoOfftopic, but i never understood why people seem to think that what the dictionary definition of the word "literally" is the part that determines whether or not it is ok to use it figuratively. Every other word is allowed to be used figuratively, and it has nothing to do with its definition.
- jsmith45 4y agoPlenty of people do use it figuratively. But then one of the main uses of the word is to be clear that you are not talking figuratively. If it is widely deemed acceptable to figuratively use a word whose main purpose is to clarify that you are not talking figuratively, it defeats the purpose, and leaves people with no easy way to be clear that they are being literal rather than figurative. Its not so terrible when the situation is sufficiently clear that the primary definition could not be possible, but becomes a lot more problematic when used as in intensifier in figurative statements where the literal interpretation is also possible/plausible.