An actual dictionary definition. Not the dictionary definition. And it’s because the dictionary is wrong in this one. Not factually incorrect, unfortunately; their goal here is to be objectively descriptivist, cataloguing use, and they are doing that. But this use is linguistically wrong on a fundamental level.
I’ve abandoned a great deal of the prescriptivist proclivities of my youth. I get it, language evolves. But I draw the line here. “Literally” means, specifically, in the literal sense. The whole point of the word is to make an explicit distinction from non-literal use. If you can use it to denote hyperbolic or figurative use, then the word literally loses all semantic purpose, it’s just a sound with no actual meaning. Sure, you can use words to mean their opposites sarcastically, but that requires an obvious tonal or contextual cues. The figurative use of “literally” is tonally the same as the literal use, all it does is add uncertainty.
It’s not even an effective intensifier, since that usage is less intense than the literal use. “I’m literally starving” is immediately less intense once it’s clear that it’s being used as an intensifier. It’s post-meaning gobbledygook.
It’s out of context. They have not understood where the word “literally” is being applied. Even if they did, the fourth definition they pulled does not apply. Which is a shame, considering all that effort.
My guess is because they’ve been feeling super-smart all these years laughing at people who use “literally” figuratively, and also i made no attempt to not sound like a prick.
But I don’t consider downvotes a bad thing here since they don’t hide the comment. I consider them engagement points.
Why all the downvotes for the first to bring up the actual dictionary definition?
An actual dictionary definition. Not the dictionary definition. And it’s because the dictionary is wrong in this one. Not factually incorrect, unfortunately; their goal here is to be objectively descriptivist, cataloguing use, and they are doing that. But this use is linguistically wrong on a fundamental level.
I’ve abandoned a great deal of the prescriptivist proclivities of my youth. I get it, language evolves. But I draw the line here. “Literally” means, specifically, in the literal sense. The whole point of the word is to make an explicit distinction from non-literal use. If you can use it to denote hyperbolic or figurative use, then the word literally loses all semantic purpose, it’s just a sound with no actual meaning. Sure, you can use words to mean their opposites sarcastically, but that requires an obvious tonal or contextual cues. The figurative use of “literally” is tonally the same as the literal use, all it does is add uncertainty.
It’s not even an effective intensifier, since that usage is less intense than the literal use. “I’m literally starving” is immediately less intense once it’s clear that it’s being used as an intensifier. It’s post-meaning gobbledygook.
Because it is disingenuous.
It’s out of context. They have not understood where the word “literally” is being applied. Even if they did, the fourth definition they pulled does not apply. Which is a shame, considering all that effort.
My guess is because they’ve been feeling super-smart all these years laughing at people who use “literally” figuratively, and also i made no attempt to not sound like a prick.
But I don’t consider downvotes a bad thing here since they don’t hide the comment. I consider them engagement points.