[dllthomas]

> It's like the word "literally" being used to mean "not-literally".

It's a digression, but I don't believe this is actually a thing.

Certainly, "Literally" is often used in figurative statements. That's different from using it to mean "figuratively".

I think it's a hyperbolic use of the original sense of "literally"; "literally X" often means "so very like X it was almost as if it was literally X but of course you know the use remains figurative".

In much the same way, if someone says "you left me waiting for days" we don't say "days occasionally means minutes"; we say that people exaggerate. I have never seen an example of a statement that would have been understood literally but for the addition of "literally".

I think Websters got this wrong.

[thechao]

Literally came from quoting texts (usually the Bible). In the oldest uses, we are asking if a quote is literal, as in “part of the Bible”. Usage from the original form diverged pretty much immediately to mean both: in the sense of actually happening; and, in a hyperbolic sense. None of the three uses is any more “correct” as the other; all have been part of English for >300 years.

[dllthomas]

My contention is that there isn't really much divergence. All of these are natural uses of the single sense of "true to the words". True to the words [of the Bible], true to the words [of description that follows], and a hyperbolic use of the latter.

Note that I'm not saying that "literally" is marking hyperbole, but that it is itself being used hyperbolicaly.

All of these are "correct" not because they are separate, established meanings of "literally" but because they are perfectly natural things to do with a word. I would think that this is also why, in an analysis that mistakes this for "divergence", that divergence was pretty much immediate.

[thechao]

Huh. I like this interpretation!