I understand that “literally” can be colloquially used to mean “figuratively”, or just as emphasis, but it’ll take a while yet for the prescriptive meaning to be “overridden”, and given how well we record history currently, given context, it will never fully lose that meaning.
I think the same logic applies here.
I’m not going to say someone is incorrect in using it in a way that doesn’t fit the prescriptive meaning, but just know that mentally I’ll be very mildly frowning at that.
Language is evolving. I agree with you but we will lose this fight in the long term ;)
Well yes, but no, but yes.
I understand that “literally” can be colloquially used to mean “figuratively”, or just as emphasis, but it’ll take a while yet for the prescriptive meaning to be “overridden”, and given how well we record history currently, given context, it will never fully lose that meaning.
I think the same logic applies here.
I’m not going to say someone is incorrect in using it in a way that doesn’t fit the prescriptive meaning, but just know that mentally I’ll be very mildly frowning at that.