@deathstriker666: I don't disagree, but I think you can have it both ways. When something like "literally" falls into incorrect common usage the language itself loses a bit of its expressive strength. A lot like "ironic" has over the past couple of decades. Sure you can use it, but if it doesn't have to mean what it means, what good is it as anything but a mid-sentence placeholder?
This isn't the OED's fault as you pointed out. No need to kill the messenger even if the messenger is a little too eager. Glen was right to look it up and show me the definition.
I've noticed this on a lot of podcasts and daily conversations lately: over-use of "literally" for emphasis instead of to describe something happening in fact. I've noticed it on the Bombcast for the last three or four weeks.
It's distracting because I always have to stop the flow of listening to the conversation and parse out whether or not the "literally" is correctly applied. Off the top of my head I remember (Patrick) saying "the guy literally flew 20 feet in the air" which probably isn't correct because if someone is thrown into the air they're not literally flying. And I'm not sure if anything could be said to be literally happening inside a video game.
Something to think about anyway. What do you guys think? Do you even notice this?
Patrick's example is the correct use of literally. Assuming the guy actually did fly 20 feet in the air. The literally does not apply to the flying, as flying and throwing can be use interchangeably in such a context. The literally applies to the height. So this statement is actually correct. What what?
I have been taking the exact same issue with the bombcast for a while now as well. I think it's a thing where once you notice, you can never stop noticing.
Log in to comment