all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 42 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Except it literally does.

The oldest known record of that use is from the 1700s, and prescriptivists didn’t start whining about it in any significant amount until 100 years ago.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Upvoting because you are technically right, even though I will never accept that as the definition of literally - and I know this literally puts me in the wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    A very easy way to square all this (and what I assumed everyone understood to be going on before I ever heard of this discourse) is that people are just using exaggeration for emphasis (a very common rhetorical tactic).

    Of course people aren't saying it's literally thing-they're-referring-to but that it has so much in common that it's "practically" almost exactly that thing.

    I feel like people overcomplicate what needn't be complicated, sometimes (like people hallucinating a "fourth-person" pronoun to explain a convention perfectly already provided by current linguistical constructs).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You're referencing some rando uttering a word and claiming that its early use makes it valid, like people were perfect speakers back then?

    Who's the prescriptivist now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • The notion that “just because someone lived a long time ago, they must have been backwards, ignorant, or stupid” is one that needs to die a loud and public death. It is that line of thinking that leads people to believe that aliens built the Pyramids, Stonehenge, etc. because they are certain that folks back then weren’t clever enough to move large rocks about.

    He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies.

    -- The History of Emily Montague, by Frances Brooke, 1769 (emphasis: mine)

    The use in the figurative sense isn’t valid merely because of “some rando uttering a word” a long time ago. It is valid because it continued to be utilized with that meaning for the next 250 years and is still used and understandable in that sense to this day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    First Known Use 15th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1

    You’re own source states the opposite

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    The opposite of what? I’m curious how you interpreted my words, because that quote does not contradict any claim I intended.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I understood you claimed that the first known use of ”literally” would have been used as ”figuratively”, but in the link it says it was used in a literal sense. But I’m tired so I might have gotten something wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh, no. I only meant that the use in the figurative sense was more than twice as old as any concerted movement against it. And even that movement is “old”. This isn’t some skibidi Ohio dreamt up by “kids these days”. It has a well established pattern of usage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    "used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Literally literally means literally.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Shower thoughts = casual observations about shit everyone should know.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    People say it's freezing outside, but it's a few degrees above water becoming a solid. What gives?

    They say they're starving even though they just haven't eaten all day.

    People need to follow the rules when it comes to words or else we descend into chaos. It's literally a highway to hell!

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Right, that's "speaking figuratively." There are rules for that.

    But a word that means the opposite of what it means is not a useful word.

    I'd hate to find a box in my lab marked "inflammable."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Plenty of words mean the opposite of themselves, so much so that there's multiple words for it; autoantonym, contranym, or Janus words.

    This morning my alarm went off so I turned it off.
    I wanted to buy a new console as soon as it was out but they were all out.
    Two people were left so I left.
    I fought with Bob over chores, but I fought with Bob in the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sounds like something that literally Hitler would say.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    English is fluid. Give it time.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    What a hot take.

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But if something is "literally like" alleging else, does that not just equate to similar too since the literal definition of similar is to be like something else?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments