Jesse Ransom said:In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
but we no longer have a word that means literally in the way that the word literally used to. It was very useful for both clarity and humor, and now it is gone. We've lost a tool of precision and beauty.
Sorry for the late reply, it's been hectic. We do have a word for literally, it's "literally." Which, of course, means a few things. Yes, I recognize the irony of using Webster as a source in the link. Anyhow, the informal use has been around since the 17th century, so it's literally nothing new.
As for changes in language, sure, not all things are great. If the meaning gets lost, then there might be reason to take issue. If the meaning remains, clear, the objective of language has been fulfilled.
In reply to nderwater :
You'll need to log in to post.
