3 ms·
It's a correct use of literally, but I think the change to the dictionary definition is in error. It's simply an example of hyperbole, which is a thing you can
by dllthomas 3y ago
It's a correct use of literally, but I think the change to the dictionary definition is in error. It's simply an example of hyperbole, which is a thing you can do with any word.
- meghan_rain 3y agoLmao, you got caught erroneously trolling somebody and now double down?
- dllthomas 3y agoDid you respond to the wrong comment, or confuse me for someone else? The comment you replied to was my only one in this thread, so if neither of those then I have (ahem) literally no idea what you're on about.
- snapcaster 3y agoIt's not a hyperbole lmao. Now you get to be the one who is pedantically corrected for no reason
- dllthomas 3y agoI wasn't correcting you. I was agreeing with you. I was correcting the dictionaries that have (IMO) got it wrong. Now, in this paragraph, I am correcting you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > It's not a hyperbole lmao. I disagree, obviously, but perhaps an explanation is in order so that we can be sure we're talking about the same thing (and give you something more specific to argue against if you still disagree). The difference between "X is Y" and "X is literally Y", when both expressions are figurative, is that the latter is meant to be strengthened by overstating the degree to which X is in fact Y. I contend that this is a hyperbolic use of "literally".