For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.
Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?
But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.
I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.
Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.
You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.
You seem to have this strange view that English is a dead language, pickled in aspic.
It’s not - it is a living, breathing thing that changes and evolves. The beauty of it is its flexibility - it doesn’t have The Academy that bedevils France.
Words like pyjamas (or even jim-jams), kharki, mufti, gymkhana - used almost every day - were all recent innovations.
“Literally” adds emphasis. It has its use. It literally no longer means literally.
For those who enjoy the misuse of the word literally as much as me: a woman at an adjacent table is telling a long and involved story about being allergic to lavender, and a reaction to some sort of cosmetic: 'My face was literally on fire. I was literally burnt to a cinder'.
Should "literally" have been in quotation marks?
But "literally" is being used in the same way as "really", so I'm not sure why pedants seem OK with one but not the other.
I was cold, I was very cold, I was freezing. You don't say "I was very freezing", so if you want to go further you have to use an adverb like "really freezing", "literally freezing" or "fucking freezing". All are fine.
Literally is a helpful word because it helps describe how extreme a situation was, by taking a scenario that might otherwise be deemed a colourful metaphor or exaggeration, and informing someone that it actually happened. 'My kitchen was flooded totally - the hearth rug literally floated out of the door.'. It's a useful rhetorical device being undermined by ignorance.
You might find it 'fine' but then it's also 'fine' if someone comes up to someone else and says 'flubby flub flubber flub'. Nobody gets hurt. It is still not very good English.
You seem to have this strange view that English is a dead language, pickled in aspic.
It’s not - it is a living, breathing thing that changes and evolves. The beauty of it is its flexibility - it doesn’t have The Academy that bedevils France.
Words like pyjamas (or even jim-jams), kharki, mufti, gymkhana - used almost every day - were all recent innovations.
“Literally” adds emphasis. It has its use. It literally no longer means literally.
People should be crucified for such heresy. Perhaps decimation for lesser offences.
Comments
It’s not - it is a living, breathing thing that changes and evolves. The beauty of it is its flexibility - it doesn’t have The Academy that bedevils France.
Words like pyjamas (or even jim-jams), kharki, mufti, gymkhana - used almost every day - were all recent innovations.
“Literally” adds emphasis. It has its use. It literally no longer means literally.