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??)

"hellish" is not the same thing as "hell"

Well, it's clear that the usage I'm citing was wrong, isn't it? My point is, literally is not being used to call out "not what I'm actually saying" but instead as an intensifier to indicate "it's TOTALLY like this". And the "like" part is the least of it, with its implication of not actual equivalence.

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

But...there's literally (meaning, it is what it says on the box), and then there's figuratively (meaning, it is not what it says on the box; you are making a comparison via metaphor). There's no third option. Fervent intensification is generally done via metaphor. (And swearing.)

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'."

You left out the part where I shake my cane menacingly at the new kid.

I guess my point is that no one is every going to swap "literal" for "figurative" any time soon. Figurative is implied by the misuse, but it's not the emphasis of it. It's just a corollary. So no one's using "literal" to mean "figurative", they're just implying figurative every time.

It is, though. also, "hed," "sked," and "ded" Although the journalism term that got me in the most trouble was "sexy", as meaning "Moving of hearts and minds," more than "erotic" Around the newsroom, it makes total sense to say that sports stadia are sexier than public transit. But when you say it Among the Hooples it seems to mean "I'll wear the cheerleader outfit!"

I love that I can count on everyone here to be debating punctuation. Literally.

My pet peeve is 'their.' I had a student rant in class the other day, "Why do teachers hate it when students use 'their' for the third person gender neutral? Why don't teachers just accept it already?!?" My answer was that most people aren't gender neutral, they are gender something, and I was tired of reading papers with sentences like: "A pregnant woman should talk to their doctor about..." @@

One of my friends in college reasoned that it was the "royal they."