[sfotm]

I hear this argument pretty frequently, but it comes off as more of an excuse.

Most people aren't thumping the dictionary like a fundamentalist might a Bible, they're just pointing out that they have a different understanding of the word than another person does. Language is useful when everyone's on the same page.

And especially regarding words drifting toward hyperbole, exaggeration, and sometimes simple misuse, sometimes it makes sense to resist the change. Compare this to cultural drift as a whole - sometimes, it drifts away for the worse and people calling it out as such aren't necessarily being obtuse just for the fun of it.

Sincerely, a person that refuses to let to of the whole "literally" thing. I'm great at parties.

[coldtea]

>Sincerely, a person that refuses to let to of the whole "literally" thing. I'm great at parties.

Literally has been used to also (or mainly) mean "figurativelly" for centuries, including in major authors, it's not some new phenomenon from some unsophisticated masses...

It's just a sound, it's not attached to some inherent meaning that must stand still till the end of time. Not to mention etymology (it originating from the word literal) != meaning.

In fact, literal itself (and literally) have changed meaning twice in the past, originally they were used to talk about things related to words not to mean "in actuality" (which is also where "literature" comes from: littera from which literature and literal comes from meant: "letters").

So, it's people who don't know the proper history and use of literally that are annoyed by its used as "figuratively".

Probably they also don't know that literally wasn't about "in reality" to begin with, or that this is just one of many contronyms, words that mean both one thing and the opposite (e.g. "dust" - you "dust" to clean a house, and you also "dust" to sprinkle some powder on something, or "clip" which means both to attach and dettach, "sanction" - to approve or to put punitive measures on, etc.).

[sfotm]

Thanks for the history of the usage. I found an article that refers to some notable authors using it in a hyperbolic sort of way, maybe I'll do some digging there.

My argument isn't really based in etymology, though, and I don't really care about the history of the words I quibble over - I'm fine with language changing in general. My issue is that making "literally" an alias to "very very" and/or "figuratively" leaves a gap where I liked the word to be and may leave it ambiguous. If I were to write about a guy who heard a joke so funny that his heart gave out, I'd be in a real pickle. A real pickle.

So the history of the word doesn't really change my opinion, and doesn't make my opinion based in some sort of ignorance. It's sort of fun to argue against the history-based argument that's usually used to support "my side" (invalidly, it seems), though.

[coldtea]

>If I were to write about a guy who heard a joke so funny that his heart gave out, I'd be in a real pickle. A real pickle.

Wouldn't that be a figurative/metaphorical pickle? I can't imagine you'd be inside a jar in actual brine and left to ferment.

[mnowicki]

regardless of whether it's technically correct(or who even gets to decide that) - the point of using language is to communicate, if you are communicating what you want then you're accomplishing your goal.

Sometimes you might want to speak more formally or 'proper' - but that's just another example of communicating effectively, by using word choice to convey the right level of formality. Or to be perceived a certain way.

Of course it's fine people are pointing out that they use the word a different way. Just saying I think the author used a clear word choice to effectively communicate what he meant to the largest number of people - even the people who are pointing out that he used the word wrong know what he was trying to communicate(otherwise they wouldn't realize he was using it 'incorrectly').