[dragonwriter]

The transitive form "Begs the question X" is in common use and well understood, and clearly distinct from (though it also serves as a rationalization of) the intransitive form "begs the question"; complaining about the former and insisting that only the latter is proper signals that you are a pointlessly pedantic prescriptivist.

Slightly more detailed version: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10659342

[pklausler]

I'm all for letting language evolve and defining meanings of words and phrases by the intent of their most common usage, but when an incorrect usage is eliminating a useful concept with no ready replacement, the older sense deserves the right to at least go down fighting.

"Begs the question" may be hopeless at this point, but I hold out an unreasonable hope that "literally" might survive its struggle.

[dragonwriter]

> but when an incorrect usage is eliminating a useful concept with no ready replacement

The transitive form "begs the question X", where X is som actual question) and intransitive ("begs the question", with no specified question, referring to the petition principii fallacy, from which, by poor translation from Latin, the English idiom is derived) forms are distinct forms; the one doesn't replace the other.

Better, the older, intransitive form can be viewed as having a clear relation to the newer, transitive form where the question "begged" is the one that was at issue and which the claim was offered to resolve, which -- given that the newer, transitive form, follows closer with the definitions of the individual words, especially in modern English -- actually provides a link between the older idiom and the rest of the language. (This can be viewed in reverse: the newer form serves as a generalization of the older form.)

> the older sense deserves the right to at least go down fighting.

Its a pointless fight when the two users are complementary and structurally distinct, as here, rather than opposed.

> but I hold out an unreasonable hope that "literally" might survive its struggle.

Complaining about the figurative use of "literally" as a figurative intensifier (where it means "almost as if literally") is pointless. Complaining about the various dictionaries that misreport this use and assert incorrectly that it is used to mean "figuratively", instead of being used figuratively itself may be more pointful (but, by this point, perhaps still somewhat quixotic.)

[DonHopkins]

And I hold out hope that "heretofore" will ensuingly not be considered a fluff word. We can all dream.

[dragonwriter]

> And I hold out hope that "heretofore" herefromaft be considered a fluff word.

The comparable opposite of "heretofore" is "hereafter" (the "tofore" comes from Old English for "before"). And its not a fluff word -- it has clear and specific meaning -- though "previously" is more fashionable now.

[DonHopkins]

Sorry for ninja editing underneath you. I've usually heard "heretofore" used in fluffy contexts, often hanging out with words like "insofar" and "wherewithal", occasionally served with mutton chops.

[eterm]

They literally already updated literally in the dictionary.

[dllthomas]

e.g. Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally):

    1 :  in a literal sense or manner :  actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>

    2 :  in effect :  virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

For what it's worth, I think they've got it wrong. In my experience, no one uses the word to convey that it was "in effect" - that would be equally understood if the word was omitted. Including, very much, the example of usage they gave. I would say what is going on is that the word is still being used in sense 1, but being used hyperbolically.

We don't say that "miles" has a separate meaning of "a few hundred feet" when someone says "I've walked miles through this store looking for you".