• samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    It is hyperbole, but the problem is that it’s using a word that was supposed to specify that something was not hyperbole as hyperbole, rendering it useless.

    • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      People, including many famous authors, have been using literally this way for hundreds of years.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes, but its use to mean its opposite didn’t become widespread until the past decade or so.

        • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Incorrect. People have been using it the way you are complaining about for hundreds of years. It’s a new phenomenon that people complain about it being used the way you disapprove of. I’d attribute the recent complaints to lack of literary exposure and anti intellectualism in recent years.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Except some of the earliest uses of the word “literally” that didn’t pertain to letters and glyps we in the form of hyperbole.
      Literal as factual and literal as exaggeration both about the same age and precedent, and have been used long enough that it’s just part of the English language at this point.
      May as well complain about how “discreet” and “indiscreet” are opposites, but “flammable” and “inflammable” are the same.

      https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/fun/wordplay/autoanto.html

      English is a language of contradictions and massively confusing syntax. News at 11.