Usage affects the evolving meaning of words, but has much less effect on grammar and punctuation.

Well, that was before there was so much usage involving punctuation. It seems natural that usage is relevant, even if prescriptivists hate it.

It seems natural that usage is relevant, even if prescriptivists hate it.

Here's where I need to point out the irony of "literally" no longer being used to mean "literally."

I mean, really? Why is usage born out of sheer ignorance acceptable in the evolution of words' meaning?

If loving punctuation within quotation marks is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Yes, well it's clear that you don't want to be right.

Have I ever given a damn about this? Do you think it's likely I'm going to start now?

Why is usage born out of sheer ignorance acceptable in the evolution of words' meaning?

I don't think acceptability has anything to do with it. It's inevitability. Being right or sensible about what something means or how it's expressed is nothing in the face of how it's actually expressed. Some fights I think can be won, but against prevalence? I just don't see it happening.

I am a prescriptivist, let's be clear. But also a pessimist. I will correct on the usage of decimate every single time I see it mangled. But I also understand that the battle is already lost.

Being right or sensible about what something means or how it's expressed is nothing in the face of how it's actually expressed. Some fights I think can be won, but against prevalence? I just don't see it happening.

I'm just ragey because the prevalence comes from sheer ignorance. People are using "literally" to mean the exact opposite of what it means. (Again, the irony, it burns.)

I don't recall ever seeing it used to mean the exact opposite. I usually see it used as a fervent intensifier.

At least back when I misused it (I still remember Mrs. Cullen telling me I didn't mean "it was literally hell in the raincoat") I didn't mean it definitely wasn't hell. I just meant it was the most hellish thing ever, like as hellish as hell, oh my god.

I was also 14.

(Again, the irony, it burns.)

Literally?

Literally?

Yes.

I don't recall ever seeing it used to mean the exact opposite. I usually see it used as a fervent intensifier.

I still remember Mrs. Cullen telling me I didn't mean "it was literally hell in the raincoat") I didn't mean it definitely wasn't hell. I just meant it was the most hellish thing ever, like as hellish as hell, oh my god.

That's not what she means. "Literally" means, well, literally. By definition, what you are saying is that it is was truly, actually hell in the raincoat. What you mean was that it was like hell, not actual hell, but it felt like hell. So, figuratively. Being the opposite of literally.

The British way of punctuating quotes has always made more sense to me including only what is quoted in the quotation marks and not mucking up the quote with my punctuation.

Unsurprisingly, I am not a prescriptivist.

That's a slippery slope to having "r" be an acceptable spelling for the third-person plural of to be.

That does bug me, too, but if it happens, it happens. I do try to teach my students the difference between formal language and informal language and how they really need to be fluent in both.