3 ms·
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 opp
by 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 agoThis 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 agoNo-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.