I'm something of a grammar Nazi, but just like I support letting "whom" die, "less" and "fewer" might as well just be interchangeable. There's no loss of language utility in doing so, unlike "literally"'s tragic demise.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ah don't let whom die. It's a really good lesson in subject vs object.

[–] Darthjaffacake 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think by letting it die they mean not policing people to use it. It's fun to use old grammar and words but it shouldn't be required if you're a native speaker.

[–] samus12345 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, let it fall into the "archaic" classification.

[–] Jiggle_Physics 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Literally has been used for emphasis, hyperbole, and metaphor since at least the late 18th century.

[–] samus12345 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware, but it was done so sparingly, as opposed to being used to mean its opposite far more than its original meaning nowadays.

[–] Jiggle_Physics 2 points 4 months ago

That is how language works. It starts off small, then it catches on over time, and after a long time has passed, it either gets filtered out, or it becomes commonly used. The case for literally being used, for reasons other than its original one, started a couple hundred years ago. Today it is super commonly used that way, as it didn't get abandoned. You are mad at the nature of the beast.