Yes. Ling PhD here -- after teaching for 10+ years, the thing most people consistently do not understand about language is: the dictionary does not define what words mean. Dictionaries at best are a representation of what words meant at one time, and those meanings change quickly and pervasively enough that there is constantly a non-zero* number of words for which the dictionary is already wrong.

*in actuality it's probably significantly higher than what is connotated by "non-zero"

[Waves from the other hill] I will never accept that usage of "literal" as correct.

I agree and will take it further. We don't even need to posit a change in the meaning of the word, we need only assume that when people use the word literally, they do not mean the word "literally" literally, they mean it figuratively.

Who says you have to use the word "literally" literally? You don't have to say the word "loudly" loudly!

As a fellow linguistics student here, completely agree. I randomly get those 'grammar nazis' like "doesnt that sort of stuff upset you?" like nahh man that stuff is fascinating! Don't lump me in with you, pleaseee.

This makes me irrationally mildly upset.

@KidDogDad

@thrawn21

How, then, would somebody be able to convey that somebody is literally 500 years old?

So, what's the new word for what “literal” used to mean?