4 ms·

This is not a criticism of the article, which is actually very balanced, but I get very impatient with people who attempt to proscribe perfectly legitimate usag

This is not a criticism of the article, which is actually very balanced, but I get very impatient with people who attempt to proscribe perfectly legitimate usage. "Literally" can be used as an intensifier, regardless of the truth of the statement it intensifies. People have been doing it for a long time. You can avoid it in your own writing if you hate it. The article's point (in my reading anyway) is that "literally" sounds a bit silly when used to intensify a clichéed or fantastic statement. I'd say that's true. Of course, that means that "literally" can have the opposite effect than the one intended. Instead of intensifying your statement it can, by making it sound funny, unintentionally defuse it instead. Oh, the irony. I love the English language.

ardell 18y ago
> People have been doing it for a long time. Why is it that commonplace misuse of a word justifies the misuse? Should we get rid of "they're" and "their" and simply use "there" in all circumstances since it has become so common?
- olavk 18y ago
  > Why is it that commonplace misuse of a word justifies the misuse? Because language is a tool for communication.
- hcayless 18y ago
  Your example is of misspellings, which are incorrect. But the use of "literally" as an intensifier is common usage and can't be called incorrect. Languages evolve, and the meanings of words can change as they are used by their speakers and writers. That's how it works.