4 ms·

I'm afraid that complaints about the use of literally as an intensifier comes off as naive these days. https://youtu.be/0p5oNM86Hgw?t=257 https://youtu.be/0p5o

I'm afraid that complaints about the use of literally as an intensifier comes off as naive these days. https://youtu.be/0p5oNM86Hgw?t=257 https://youtu.be/0p5oNM86Hgw?t=257 @4:17 "No one complains about "fabulous"... or "marvelous"... or even the word "very"... etymologically meaning true..." I myself am coming to a place of acceptance about the use of "begs the question" to mean "raises the question". While I will never use it that way, I no longer literally grind my teeth to dust when I hear it.

unethical_ban 4y ago
To rebut the expert in the video, the seemingly obvious difference is that "literally" has changed suddenly and in my lifetime, and specifically to mean the opposite of its true definition vs. merely adding a meaning. It isn't naivety for one to be bothered by it; it is grammatical laziness to misuse it. Maybe I will care less when poor kids born today misuse it in 20 years.
- jamincan 4y ago
  This is simply not true. According to Merriam-Webster, its use in a figurative context goes back 300 years. And hyperbole has a real function in language - it's not just laziness. Omitting 'quite literally', or worse, replacing it with 'figuratively' in the original sentence would communicate something quite different.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    No-one should be suggesting replacing "quite literally" with "figuratively", but there is no problem with removing it altogether. It is pointless to introduce hyperbole here.
lumb63 4y ago
> We want writing to be transparent, clear, and easy to read. Need I say more than the above quote to convince someone that the “figurative use of literally” should be avoided? I’d say the same of any other auto-antonym. Language is a tool to communicate our meaning. When we use words that obscure our meaning, it ceases to serve its purpose. Yes, I understand it is hyperbolic. Yes, I understand it has been used in this way for a long time. The reason that the author of this video has words like “very”, “ridiculous”, and “fabulous” to complain about is because nobody was a stickler about those words long ago, and they’ve now lost their meaning. Yet somehow, rather than encouraging people to use words to mean what they mean, he decides that since it’s happened before, we ought to accept it happening again. I don’t know why he would ever decide that is the rational decision.

unethical_ban 4y ago

To rebut the expert in the video, the seemingly obvious difference is that "literally" has changed suddenly and in my lifetime, and specifically to mean the opposite of its true definition vs. merely adding a meaning. It isn't naivety for one to be bothered by it; it is grammatical laziness to misuse it. Maybe I will care less when poor kids born today misuse it in 20 years.

jamincan 4y ago
This is simply not true. According to Merriam-Webster, its use in a figurative context goes back 300 years. And hyperbole has a real function in language - it's not just laziness. Omitting 'quite literally', or worse, replacing it with 'figuratively' in the original sentence would communicate something quite different.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  No-one should be suggesting replacing "quite literally" with "figuratively", but there is no problem with removing it altogether. It is pointless to introduce hyperbole here.

lumb63 4y ago

> We want writing to be transparent, clear, and easy to read. Need I say more than the above quote to convince someone that the “figurative use of literally” should be avoided? I’d say the same of any other auto-antonym. Language is a tool to communicate our meaning. When we use words that obscure our meaning, it ceases to serve its purpose. Yes, I understand it is hyperbolic. Yes, I understand it has been used in this way for a long time. The reason that the author of this video has words like “very”, “ridiculous”, and “fabulous” to complain about is because nobody was a stickler about those words long ago, and they’ve now lost their meaning. Yet somehow, rather than encouraging people to use words to mean what they mean, he decides that since it’s happened before, we ought to accept it happening again. I don’t know why he would ever decide that is the rational decision.