spoiler
alt text: A two panel comic. In the first panel there are two buttons labeled "I don't believe in prescriptivism" and "'Literally' cannot mean 'figuratively'". A finger hovers between the buttons. In the second panel, the finger's owner is sweating and wiping his brow, unable to decide.
Literally can mean figuratively if you hate being clear, but it's a much easier world to live in if words don't mean two precisely fucking opposite things.
Plenty of words mean two precisely opposite things. Cleave, clip, dust, sanction, argue, drop, and a bunch of other examples that I'm shamelessly copying from a website
Language doesn't work properly without context anyway. Saying "I literally died" has one obvious meaning when I'm talking about a meme someone posted on discord, and a different obvious meaning when I'm talking to the news about the time my heart stopped beating.
You aren't interacting with the premise of my argument. I'm not saying this hasn't happened before. I'm saying is it useful to add another one that has no actual use beyond "I cannot think of an adverb"?
The premise of your argument is 'why aren't people more rational?'. That's a silly premise.
But, "I literally died" can never be misinterpreted because ghosts aren't real. "Literally" has no obvious meaning if someone says "I'm literally suffocating". Does someone need to be helped with a serious medical condition, or are they using a metaphor to describe their feelings?
What makes it annoying is that the word that got co-opted was a word that existed to make it clear that something wasn't an exaggeration or a metaphor. Yes, language requires context, but it's annoying when a word can mean two very different things, and you have to ask for context in order to interpret the word.
You know how I said language doesn't work properly without context? You don't have to ask for context when someone tells you something. I struggle to think of a situation where it isn't obvious in the moment whether someone means "literally" literally or figuratively. For example, "I'm literally suffocating." Did you actually think about the reality of a situation where someone tells you this? You can just look at a person and know whether they're struggling to breathe.
I admit that if someone sends a text that reads "I'm literally suffocating" without any context, then that's not very useful, but that just works further to my point that context matters.
Exactly.
Have some reading glasses 👓
I never denied that context matters, my point is that few words are that ambiguous without context.
No one ever seems to have a problem with really (as in real) or very (from verily, ie true) being used in figurative senses, however.
I'm not saying English is perfectly consistent or that its never happened before, I'm saying why introduce ambiguity that gains nothing? Do we truly not have enough very/really analogs?
That's because they're words used to provide emphasis in the same sense as the original word.
Very and verily are similar. I'm very tired, or verily I am tired. Maybe one is used more to say "to a great extent" and the other to mean "no kidding", but they're roughly the same. Same with truly from the root same root as "truth".
What makes "literally" vs. "figuratively" annoying is that literally used to mean "not figuratively", but is now used to emphasize a metaphor or a comparison.
So, "it's literally 5 tons" could mean either it's actually 5 tons, or that it's very heavy but probably nowhere near 5 tons. If someone actually wants to say that it is actually true that it is 5 tons, the worst word they can use to emphasize that truth is "literally".
This exactly. You can have a different meaning for a word if there's a good reason for it. I have never heard a justification for this other than "Language changes, get over it lol"
Yeah, actual usefulness is where I draw the line for descriptivism, I guess.