4 ms·
In general I'd agree. But in this case we see the sort of destruction of language George Orwell warned about. By legitimising a use of the word "literally" wh
by dataduck 13y ago
In general I'd agree. But in this case we see the sort of destruction of language George Orwell warned about. By legitimising a use of the word "literally" which is counter both to its etymology, and to the intention of talking about communication in terms of the specific meanings of the words involved, we risk making it more difficult in practice to consider the specifics of what has been said.
- claudius 13y agoUnfortunately, this destruction of language is not government-mandated, as Orwell feared, but results a) from the laziness of most people and b) from the increased effects these people have on ‘upper class’ language due to thinner class boundaries and modern media. a) definitely sucks, but b)?
- Avshalom 13y agofor every "literally" we lose we gain a "twerk" AND a "jeggings" AND we steal (and give our own connotations to) a "kawaii" English is very much expanding. Orwell's jackboot may be coming but it will be a literal boot not a lack of words.