3 ms·
Literally has been used to mean "in the strongest metaphorical sense" for close to 300 years, so I think you're beating a bit of a dead horse on that. Source:
by hdevalence 13y ago
Literally has been used to mean "in the strongest metaphorical sense" for close to 300 years, so I think you're beating a bit of a dead horse on that.
Source: OED
- lutusp 13y agoIt's true that this is an old misuse. But IMHO it's still deplorable that a word and its antonym have merged into one.
- bglazer 13y agoAt what point does 'old misuse' become correct usage?
- lutusp 13y agoIt happens all the time. Take "decimate" as just one example of hundreds that come to mind. It once meant to reduce by one-tenth. But through common usage it has come to mean: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate "to destroy a large number of (plants, animals, people, etc.)" But for exasperate as a replacement for exacerbate, that's more of a stretch. Not to say it won't happen.
- jaykru 13y agoWhat are some of the other "hundreds" of examples that come to mind?
- lutusp 13y agoWhat's my incentive to do this? I post an interesting and relevant fact, and get downvoted. The more interesting and relevant to the topic of discussion, the more downvotes in proportion. I prefer the company of adults.
- dllthomas 13y agoI don't think it's unreasonable to interpret "literally" as still meaning literally but the "strongest metaphoric sense" use an example of hyperbole. "Literally" is never used to mean "further from literal than you were thinking".