Since it’s widely accepted that the word “literally” can be used to add emphasis, we need another word that can be used when you want to make it clear that you really mean “literally” in the original sense.
I literally only use “literally” when I literally mean “literally”.
The word you’re looking for is “literally.”
The word they’re looking for literally is “literally”.
Wait until you find out where the word very comes from.
Verily the veritas may surprise you.
Edit: and literally does not even literally mean “opposite of figuratively” — it literally means “by the letter” — as in literature — as any literate person knows.
Yeah, literally
Unfortunately Merriam-Webster disagrees.
Dictionary compilation is descriptive, not prescriptive.
They don’t “disagree” with anyone. They just report on how words are being used.
You can’t get into an argument with a dictionary, no matter how hard you try.
If you feel that it’s unfortunate, why take their side? I’ve found that no confusion is caused by using it the correct way. If any might be, it is at least in service of a noble cause.
Language evolves and, more ever than Merriam-Webster, the speakers and writers get to decide what words mean. While that does apply to you not wanting it mean that, you are swimming against the current in this case.
Right, I’m aware of this and see nothing wrong with it.
Swimming against the current is how all social progress is made.
- Mirriam-webster isn’t a great dictionary. It’s in the name.
- Dictionaries don’t say what’s correct; only what’s popular.
it’s widely accepted that the word “literally” can be used to add emphasis
You found the root cause.
The solution is vicious heckling of idiots who misuse it - treat them like a middle-school drop-out - until they fix their behavior. Do the same for people who pluralize mass nouns as well: trainings, supports (not used like struts), emails.
I tried that with “irony”. People don’t give a fuck, they just want to randomly use words to seem smart.
Make them feel dumb when you catch them at it
People who don’t feel very dumb and just use random words aren’t shamed by telling them they are dumb for using random words.
They just come back at you with the old speech “did you know language evolves 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔”
Linguistic drift happens over generations, that’s just illiteracy, and if they’re too stupid to feel shame they definitely don’t know anything about that anyway
Are you enjoying this conversation with yourself LOL
All we can do is use the word correctly, and maybe, if you feel like it, correct other’s use of it.
We’ve nearly lost “envy”, and hundreds of other words due to people using words incorrectly. But, as we all know, language is as alive as the people who use it, and it changes right along with us.
A more interesting story, to me, is the discovery that we’re all talking less and less:
Psychologists discovered that, since 2005, the average person has spoken less each year than the year before, by approximately 338 fewer words per day.
correct other’s use of it.
In practical terms, that just pisses off your friends :(
Guess they’d better start using the word correctly
Would you rather be right or have friends? That’s the tradeoff I’ve seen
I’d rather have friends that aren’t stupid, barring that I’d be happy to accept friends who are maybe not the smartest but are willing to make small efforts to accomodate their friends even when they don’t necessarily understand the logic behind the request. Quality over quantity.
Welcome to languages, where the definitions aren’t static, and the meanings change over time.
This is brought to you by the word angnail. Yes angnail, not hangnail. Okay fine it’s hangnail now.
Linguistic drift happens over generations, this is just illiteracy
So you mean, if this use of ‘literally’ had been around for, say, several centuries, you’d consider it acceptable?
Lol still no, the article you linked makes it clear that in all that time the situation hasn’t changed at all, the primary definition is the same and the secondary usage is the same and the criticism is the same
Your comment was purely about these changes taking generations to happen, this is something that has been in the work since the 18th century. It’s a perfectly typical change, not a sudden one based in illiteracy.
No, this is something that has not changed at all since the 18th century, learn to read
You are so confidently incorrect and unable to recognize your error. I invite you to re-read the whole article. This is a use that first surfaced in the 18th century and has slowly become more common, with an adoption peak recently. That’s how languages evolve.
In any case, definitely not about illiteracy, which, once again, is your original claim.
Gain some maturity.
The primary definition is unchanged for several centuries, the secondary definition has always been secondary and is more controversial than ever, if anything it seems pretty obvious that any linguistic drift occurring is in the opposite direction of your preference. I’m right and I’m winning, cope.
Or just improve your vocabulary.
You know of a word that satisfies OP’s criteria and you’re not going to share it?
It’s not just one word. You use the appropriate adjective for the sentence. It’s many words.
Or just leave out words like literally as they do
literallyabsolutely nothing.
