I don’t think it’s technically correct, but that word has been mangled so badly at this point that I would say the way it’s used here counts as common usage.
Thanks! Got me confused when reading the whole post but then I guessed something like what you just said already.
Just wanted to have some confirmation.
Speaks better English English closer to an arbitrary standard than most native English speakers
That’s what usually happens when you focus on learning the “standard” in isolation instead of being exposed to stigmatized non-“standard” dialects as a child as you acquire your mother tongue.
Happens with literally every language, not just English.
Also, it’s funny how people always get their panties in a twist about “literally”, but never other autoantonyms like “cleave” or “sanction”.
It’s almost as if context does allow language to keep working when autoantonyms exist, and the prescriptivists’ snobbery and “concern” for the “purity” of the language is really just an excuse to lord their own adherence to an outdated and arbitrary set of rules over their interlocutors.
This comment is literally correct, and all of the responses to it are literally /c/badlinguistics, so of course this comment is the one that gets downvoted.
Context is the difference. If you’re one of the people who can’t understand hyperbole and saracsm and such, you’ll just have to take my word for it I guess.
If you’re one of the people who can’t understand hyperbole and saracsm and such
I understand it just fine.
The problem is that the word “literally” is supposed to mean “without hyperbole or sarcasm”. So when you use it to emphasize hyperbole or sarcasm, you’re making the word meaningless.
I don’t think it’s technically correct, but that word has been mangled so badly at this point that I would say the way it’s used here counts as common usage.
It has come to a point where literally means both literally and figurativelly depending on context.
You are literally correct
Thanks! Got me confused when reading the whole post but then I guessed something like what you just said already.
Just wanted to have some confirmation.
That’s what usually happens when you focus on learning the “standard” in isolation instead of being exposed to stigmatized non-“standard” dialects as a child as you acquire your mother tongue.
Happens with literally every language, not just English.
It’s not mangled, it’s just used as a hyperbole. When you say someone is tall as a mountain you’re not mangling the word “mountain” in doing so.
When you say someone is literally as tall as a mountain, that literally means that they would be at least 2,000 feet tall.
Yes. In that case it’s not used as a hyperbole.
Right, so “literally” indicates that the statement is not a hyperbole.
Not always. When I say my head literally exploded, the word “literally” absolutely is a hyperbole.
That defeats the purpose of the word. It makes it mean literally nothing.
That’s not how language works.
Also, it’s funny how people always get their panties in a twist about “literally”, but never other autoantonyms like “cleave” or “sanction”.
It’s almost as if context does allow language to keep working when autoantonyms exist, and the prescriptivists’ snobbery and “concern” for the “purity” of the language is really just an excuse to lord their own adherence to an outdated and arbitrary set of rules over their interlocutors.
Your other two examples you can get from context.
The purpose of “literally” is to define the context. It can’t be used figuratively and retain any meaning.
This comment is literally correct, and all of the responses to it are literally /c/badlinguistics, so of course this comment is the one that gets downvoted.
They angry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There’s literally no difference in the usage.
Context is the difference. If you’re one of the people who can’t understand hyperbole and saracsm and such, you’ll just have to take my word for it I guess.
I understand it just fine.
The problem is that the word “literally” is supposed to mean “without hyperbole or sarcasm”. So when you use it to emphasize hyperbole or sarcasm, you’re making the word meaningless.
There’s literally no difference in context between those two examples. You’re literally just making up the rules.