I thought the second definition came about from continual misunderstanding of the word, like how literally no longer means literally.
I thought the second definition came about from continual misunderstanding of the word, like how literally no longer means literally.
BTW, what is the new word to use when one literally means literally?
There is none. The word has been misused to the point of ambiguity being an accepted part of its definition, and we are all worse off for it. The language is now less expressive, and you need to use more words to add context and remove ambiguity when you really do mean "literally" in the literal sense.
‘Actually’ is what I’ve heard most often.
Use literally. It still means literally. Language has all kinds of things like sarcasm, exaggeration, and metaphor that change the way a sentence should be interpreted, but the meaning of each word remains the same.
You add “quite” before “literally”.
Just prefix the sentence with “literally literally (not literally literally)”
Gen Z uses the very awkward "unironically".
that too, will often get used ironically
[flagged]
Sure, but that’s how language works. Lots of words that we use in modern English have drifted away from their original meaning.
Language is the shared meaning between people, so if lots of people understand something the same way… then thats what the word means now
The curious thing is that Norman Mailer coined the term about 1970. Is drift accelerating, or do words so new lack the stability of the old?
I don’t think it’s that. I think it’s that new words are less stable than old ones.
In the same way that if you want to predict which authors will be well known in 400 years, your best bet is on authors that we currently know from 400 years ago. Better to bet on Shakespeare and Aristotle, than e.e.cummings and T.S. Eliot
A word coined in the 1970s won’t be nearly as entrenched in its meaning with the public as an older word.
So, that’s my suspicion. New words are more prone to drift than old words