You are correct about the word "literally," but I am in the camp that feels we should proceed cautiously in such matters. Just because a published professional got away with a mistake or made a deliberate artistic choice in 1905 doesn't mean it should become mainstream usage. When the word "literally" can mean, casually, either "literally" or "figuratively" then it ceases to have any real meaning. The figurative use is best when used with extreme obvious hyperbole. For me to say "I care enough about this post that I am literally standing up right now" when I am, indeed, sitting down, should be seen as a mis-use that weakens the word. Done frequently and it introduces avoidable entropy into language.

See also: enormity.

We really do need to take some care here or else we'll soon be spelling "lose" as "loose." Although that particular issue is probably coming from non-native speakers, it's being picked up and used by others and may eventually become accepted. That will not ease our ability to communicate.

The first time I saw 'enormity' used as a synonym of 'vastness', it was as if I had stumbled while walking, as nothing in the text up to that point indicated anything bad happening. 'Enormity', however, invites misunderstanding, and it would be better if it were retired, though that is not going to happen.

Yeah, when I see that so often it makes me think I am loosing my mind.

Wait, maybe that's a good thing: "loose" (v): to free from restraint, to make less rigid, tight, or strict. (M-W)

Here's an odd one for you. Many of my younger friends say "on accident" instead of "by accident", e.g. "He didn't mean to do that. It was on accident."

It bugs me to no end; it just seems wrong.

But it's surprisingly logical: after all, we say "on purpose", so why not "on accident" for the opposite?

I don't think I will start saying or writing it that way, though!

I noticed a lot of what was illogical about English became apparent when I started interacting with students and professors who had different native tongues.

> When the word "literally" can mean, casually, either "literally" or "figuratively" then it ceases to have any real meaning.

i don't think i can agree here, at least not with the gist. in a sense, words already don't have 'real meaning' (they're just noises or scribbles depending on the medium), their meaning or communicative value is bestowed by their actual use in a specific language, place, time, etc.

if you mean to say that we can't communicate the non-figurative sense of 'literally', consider: when someone whines 'you mean figuratively, not literally', this necessarily implies that the complainer understood what was said. if they can comprehend this distinction, it would seem utility remains and the complaint is informed mostly by a resistance to change (imo).

> We really do need to take some care here or else we'll soon be spelling "lose" as "loose."

this seems like a separate issue. the words 'lose' and 'loose' are not being used interchangeably (afaik); my sense of it is that it's just an issue of transcription because the spelling is extremely similar.

I would suggest that if someone "whines" 'you mean figuratively, not literally' that they may be double-checking (depends on context of course). Or perhaps the complaint may be due to the fact that the complainer does not know that "literally" can mean "figuratively."

I agreed that the word "literally" can be used figuratively, but this use needs to be obvious- kind of like pronouns. I personally prefer to avoid that use because I am not a particularly talented wordsmith.

> doesn't mean it should become mainstream usage

Perhaps, but what I'm arguing is something slightly different: that the idea "literally used to only mean literally but recently it started being used to mean figuratively" is a myth.

You are correct. I am whining about something like that happening, and noting that while correct its use (obvious hyperbole) is subtle and not one that many who use it that way pick up on.

I have prescriptivist tendencies, but I agree that "It has to be that way because it's always been that way" is a stupid argument.

I'm simply of the opinion that language that leads to misunderstanding is bad. That's why I correct anyone who I suspect to use the word "literally" for the opposite of its meaning, and why I use Oxford commas.

I also like when the meaning of a sentence is inferable by only knowing the words and simple grammar rules. That's why I hate "could of" or "I could care less".

I will also roll my eyes if you ask me to use double spaces after a period. That rule was born from a technical limitation that's long gone.

In essence I think that conserving ancient rules and meanings is just one branch of prescriptivism, and it's unfair to judge everything prescriptivist based on that one radical branch.

I like that you used the Oxford comma in the sentence about it.

People need to spend more time reading real books and less time reading made up rules.