• chuckleslord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Literally was being used as an intensifier in both cases where it was being used to signify the truth of something and in the absurdist manner. So, no, it didn’t lose all meaning. So long as you’re not emphasizing something too absurd to be considered real, the original meaning still holds. And if someone uses the word to emphasize something that could be real, though unlikely, they’ll likely get the appropriate follow-up.

    On the Crescendo one, do you also get mad about forte? Cause basically the same thing happened there. And no one will confuse the music term for the colloquial term in either case.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I hadn’t really thought about forte, but now that you mention it, yeah, that one pisses me off, too. Thinking about it, I do avoid using that term.

      And Literally is supposed to mean that some thing is truly as described, to differentiate between exaggeration. So when it is used as exaggeration, it causes the sort of confusion that means exactly what the literal meaning is literally supposed to avoid.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Heaven forbid someone use a colloquialism! How will they ever be understood?

        (For the sake of clarity I feel I must point out that I do not believe Heaven should, in fact, forbid such a practice. I fear without this clarification my first sentence is impossible to understand.)