5 ms·

I don't know how you figure that. Up until the last 10 years, when someone said "I literally (did $thing)" it was a statement that they actually did whatever it

by bigstrat2003 3y ago

I don't know how you figure that. Up until the last 10 years, when someone said "I literally (did $thing)" it was a statement that they actually did whatever it was, regardless of how unlikely it might seem. That is the polar opposite of how people (especially the kids, who should get off my lawn) use it today. It is a misuse of language, plain and simple.

krapp 3y ago
No, "literally" has been used to mean "figuratively" as a common English idiom for centuries, and there is plenty of documentary proof to that effect, including the specific year I mentioned (1769) being the first use of "literally" as "figuratively" attested to in print. This isn't something "the kids" came up with ten years ago, or that I just made up. Here. Here's another article about it[0]. Like all language prescriptivists, you're simply wrong. [0]https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/the-300-year-history-of-using-literally-figuratively.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/the-300-year-history-of-using...
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  Ok bro. I don't know why you're being so hostile. But I'll just say that I disagree that your sources persuasively back up your argument. Hell, the second one is completely irrelevant. It's just trying to come up with an excuse to complain about (non-existent) sexism, and has no good argument whatsoever. Your first source is better, but I still don't agree it substantiates your claim. Oh, and since we're apparently trading insults about linguistic views: like all linguistic descriptivists, you don't know what words mean. ;)
derrikcurran 3y ago
I've always seen it more as exaggeration/absurdity for the sake of humor than ignorant misuse of the word. Like in a cartoon when a character's eyes _literally_ pop out of their head. Of course, even if that's true, I'm sure the nuance would sometimes be lost in translation and help blur the definition in common vernacular just the same.

krapp 3y ago

No, "literally" has been used to mean "figuratively" as a common English idiom for centuries, and there is plenty of documentary proof to that effect, including the specific year I mentioned (1769) being the first use of "literally" as "figuratively" attested to in print. This isn't something "the kids" came up with ten years ago, or that I just made up. Here. Here's another article about it[0]. Like all language prescriptivists, you're simply wrong. [0]https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/the-300-year-history-of-using-literally-figuratively.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/the-300-year-history-of-using...

bigstrat2003 3y ago
Ok bro. I don't know why you're being so hostile. But I'll just say that I disagree that your sources persuasively back up your argument. Hell, the second one is completely irrelevant. It's just trying to come up with an excuse to complain about (non-existent) sexism, and has no good argument whatsoever. Your first source is better, but I still don't agree it substantiates your claim. Oh, and since we're apparently trading insults about linguistic views: like all linguistic descriptivists, you don't know what words mean. ;)

derrikcurran 3y ago

I've always seen it more as exaggeration/absurdity for the sake of humor than ignorant misuse of the word. Like in a cartoon when a character's eyes _literally_ pop out of their head. Of course, even if that's true, I'm sure the nuance would sometimes be lost in translation and help blur the definition in common vernacular just the same.