I heard on the radio that the OED have changed the definition of the word "literally" that will allow it to be used as emphasis. E.g. it's now acceptable for a football commentator to say "Player X is literally on fire!" to describe a player who is performing well. This literally annoys me and I don't care what the OED says, it still sounds stupid.
Literally
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
And so does a lot of slangs and words taken on by OED with a new meaning over the past decades/century, they're just reacting to what's commonly used and commonly understood in certain context.
If it annoys you, don't use the word. You'll soon get used to it... mate.
If it annoys you, don't use the word. You'll soon get used to it... mate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,278
- Location
- Woking
Odious
p) opposite things with no way to judge from the context.
This is one of the few things people say which actually bothers me.
It's literally wrong to use it in the way people do, figuratively or metaphorically are both perfectly good words to use.
Or even better, just say "He's on fire!" - when talking about somebody performing well.
As it's a sporting event it's safe to assume they are speaking metaphorically & not literally (unless the sporting event involves setting people alight), why people then feel the need to qualify it with an additional word which then turns something which was already obvious into something wrong is beyond me.
It's literally wrong to use it in the way people do, figuratively or metaphorically are both perfectly good words to use.
Or even better, just say "He's on fire!" - when talking about somebody performing well.
As it's a sporting event it's safe to assume they are speaking metaphorically & not literally (unless the sporting event involves setting people alight), why people then feel the need to qualify it with an additional word which then turns something which was already obvious into something wrong is beyond me.
Last edited:
I look forwards to the Oxford English Dictionary changing the definition for 'of' to allow 'could have', 'would have' and 'should have'. 'There', 'their' and 'they're' obviously need changing too and I think they should also make either 'woman' or 'women' redundant and just agree to use one as most people cannot understand the difference between both.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 7,292
This thread is just litter, really.
This change has been in place since September 2011, it's only come to light recently because (I presume) it made it to the front page on reddit a few days ago - and people have taken note.
The use of the word like this can be dated back to..
Does this really bother you that much? Get over it.
The use of the word like this can be dated back to..
Does this really bother you that much? Get over it.
Last time I checked the OED don't decide who is allowed to say what, or what is acceptable English for a football commentator. They are reflecting common usage not passing laws. There are plenty of words and combinations thereof in the OED that would not be acceptable for a football commentator to say on TV
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
It literally wouldn't be a proper thread, until Cosimo embeds a YouTube vid. Literally.
