• bitwaba@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    The correct usage is however people use it

    If people use “literally” figuratively, does that mean that they’re evolving the language? Or are they just idiots?

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Literally is now even officially a contranym. Additionally in the process of making the decision to make it a contranym, they pointed to a number of examples of famous English authors using it as in the way these “idiots” use it.

      Language evolves.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        What is the line for language evolution ?

        If I start calling dogs “cats” tomorrow, am I wrong? Or have I just taken the first steps towards making my mark on the English language?

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          If I start calling dogs “cats” tomorrow, am I wrong?

          If your audience knows what you mean? No. If your audience has no idea what you mean? Yes.

          Or have I just taken the first steps towards making my mark on the English language?

          If it becomes a norm? Yes.

          But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? We were talking about literally, and how it is literally (the way you mean it) a contranym now. Using it to only mean figuratively (the way you want it to be used), especially when it had been used that way for a long time and even has a history of using is no longer “idiotic” it’s just a common usage of the term. It mildly irks me too, however, I can’t remember the last time I was actually confused by the intent of the speaker.