this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1203 points (95.5% liked)

memes

10039 readers
3859 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] samus12345 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It is hyperbole, but the problem is that it's using a word that was supposed to specify that something was not hyperbole as hyperbole, rendering it useless.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the problem is that it's using a word that was supposed to specify that something was not hyperbole as hyperbole, rendering it useless.

... Or... Because it's a word specifically meant to indicate it is not hyperbolic, using it in that way is literally the superlative hyperbole.

[–] samus12345 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

At the cost of the word's intended use, unfortunately. RIP literally. It literally died.

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

Now you have to hit literally in the chest with an adrenaline shot to bring lividity into its decaying body.

quite literally

actually literally

[–] samus12345 3 points 1 year ago

A good point, I haven't seen "quite literally" used to mean "figuratively." Perhaps there's some usefulness to be had yet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

rendering it useless

Another example of hyperbole.

[–] samus12345 3 points 1 year ago

Okay, rendering it far less useful.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People, including many famous authors, have been using literally this way for hundreds of years.

[–] samus12345 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, but its use to mean its opposite didn't become widespread until the past decade or so.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People have been complaining about it longer than a decade, so you're way off there.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Tldr: common use in the "figurative" sense for since the 1800s.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Incorrect. People have been using it the way you are complaining about for hundreds of years. It’s a new phenomenon that people complain about it being used the way you disapprove of. I’d attribute the recent complaints to lack of literary exposure and anti intellectualism in recent years.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Except some of the earliest uses of the word "literally" that didn't pertain to letters and glyps we in the form of hyperbole.
Literal as factual and literal as exaggeration both about the same age and precedent, and have been used long enough that it's just part of the English language at this point.
May as well complain about how "discreet" and "indiscreet" are opposites, but "flammable" and "inflammable" are the same.

https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/fun/wordplay/autoanto.html

English is a language of contradictions and massively confusing syntax. News at 11.