People who misuse "Literally"

[Red]

Every now and again, I see or hear someone misuse the word "Literally" which, if you don't know by now, (for whatever reason) means exactly, or not incorporating any metaphor to what someone is saying. Despite this, people, including many of my friends, use this to exagerate something. For instance, I remember talking to my friend one time, and he said "I literally laughed my ass off after I saw Shane slipped on ketchup in the Cafeteria!". So my friend is basically implying that his ass somehow manages to detach from his body due to laughing so hard. In fact, people misuse the word so much the Merriam Webster Dictionary has actually added a new definition to the word! What do you think?

[brimstoneSalad]

Dictionaries are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. They have to add any definitions that are common. Annoying as that may be when they make English less useful.

[Jebus]

Languages evolve, often after the masses have used terms incorrectly. A word use that is considered wrong today might be considered correct tomorrow. This is obviously what has happened with the word "literally." I find it unfortunate that representatives of academia, like Webster, let the common usage win over the correct usage. This will only cause confusion to those trying to learn English.

[Red]

Don't get me wrong, I do think that language should evolve, but only when it's absolutely necassary. The onlt reason wy there's a new definition is because retards misuse the word, thus adding a new definition to it.

[miniboes]

Don't get me wrong, I do think that language should evolve, but only when it's absolutely necassary. The onlt reason wy there's a new definition is because retards misuse the word, thus adding a new definition to it.

Language changes, there isn"t much you can do about it. I don't think you're misusing the word if everybody knows what you mean.

[brimstoneSalad]

Language changes, there isn"t much you can do about it. I don't think you're misusing the word if everybody knows what you mean.

That's just the problem. Now we no longer have a word that literally means "literally" and not figuratively. Now it's more difficult to communicate, because we've lost the ability to clearly convey a certain concept.

Now you have to use a whole sentence to explain you mean literally in the older sense that is actually literally as in not figuratively and not the second definition which means figuratively by exaggeration.

It's not conducive to the purpose of language. Which in my book makes it wrong.

[ChipDipSM]

Language changes, there isn"t much you can do about it. I don't think you're misusing the word if everybody knows what you mean.

That's just the problem. Now we no longer have a word that literally means "literally" and not figuratively. Now it's more difficult to communicate, because we've lost the ability to clearly convey a certain concept.

Now you have to use a whole sentence to explain you mean literally in the older sense that is actually literally as in not figuratively and not the second definition which means figuratively by exaggeration.

It's not conducive to the purpose of language. Which in my book makes it wrong.

I agree with you on this.

[Neptual]

Why so much emphasis on this?

How would I misuse "literally"? If I said "I'd literally kill you if you stole my cookie". Unless I'm a deranged psychopath I'm most likely just kidding and using a hyperbole.

Yes, literary terms do exist and for good reason.

[brimstoneSalad]

Why so much emphasis on this?

Semantics are actually extremely important, and very relevant to veganism and atheism, because they inform expression of philosophy and practical rhetoric.

How would I misuse "literally"? If I said "I'd literally kill you if you stole my cookie". Unless I'm a deranged psychopath I'm most likely just kidding and using a hyperbole.

Most likely, but not certainly. You have created an ambiguity in language, and as a consequence you have made language less useful. To put it simply, you are wrong in abusing language in that way. Doing so harms everybody by harming the utility of communication (which is essential to rational discourse).

The word "literally" itself may not be very important. Sure, we can probably stand to lose it. But if you misuse "literally" in a way that degrades the utility of language, you lose the ability to honestly criticize carnists and theists when they also misuse words to suit their agendas (provided they can also appeal to popular ignorance to defend themselves).

See how it starts being important?

The issue isn't really about "literally". It's about how we use language, and what usages are valid, and what distortions are not valid.
Word meanings are largely a popularity contest, in that usage defines meaning (descriptivism), but not exclusively so.

Descriptivism is only generally valid because it is generally the most useful way to define words (since it goes with whatever infrastructure is already in place), however to appeal exclusively to descriptivism would be a bandwagon fallacy.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

When descriptivists take their views on language to the ideological extreme, they are simply wrong.

What is right in language is what is the most useful to the purpose of language: communication and understanding/correct categorization of ideas. 99.9% of the time that may be the descriptivist definition, but that breaks down when language drifts in a way that makes it less useful by creating ambiguity or destroying the practical function of words, or confusing people as to the nature of something.
This is particularly relevant to the fields of rhetoric and philosophy.