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.
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.
But when I used literally there, I wasn't saying "it was figuratively hell in that raincoat". I was saying "it was really really hellish in that raincoat". Concomitant is the implication that it's figurative, but it's not what the word is put there to communicate.
Have I ever given a damn about this? Do you think it's likely I'm going to start now?
No, you're stubborn like that. You're going to be sixty-three and snapping at the new kid in the office, "It's spelled 'l-e-d-e'."
But when I used literally there, I wasn't saying "it was figuratively hell in that raincoat". I was saying "it was really really hellish in that raincoat".
"hellish" is not the same thing as "hell"
"It was literally hellish" means (to me) something different from "It was literally hell". (see what I did there, with the quotations marks and period??)
