>>23173282I cross-referenced with the site afterwards, and the results are the same with altered wording that amounts to little more but filler. The point of a dictionary is to reflect the state of a language, and I don't believe one can argue that this is the manner in which it is often used, and a manner in which it is also accepted. It should be understood that just as "house" has more than one meaning differentiated by its pronunciation, "literally" has reached a point at which it is used in part as a device for emphasis in which one implies that some object of speech fulfills a set of conditions sufficient for a following description to be a fact.
For something to be both figurative and literal is impossible, but the linguistic conditions of being described as "literally" point to fulfilling enough of a set of a conditions to meet a requirement in context. One doesn't say "you're figuratively a genius" in any sense other than ironic because it doesn't make sense. If, however, you were to suggest that an intelligent idea proposed by a person qualified the person as a genius by association, there's nothing wrong with saying "you're literally a genius," as irksome as it may be to say that instead of "you're a genius."
At any rate, this is a strange thing to argue. You can argue against a generally accepted definition of a word, but the fact that it's generally accepted kind of cements the point of defining it to be understood.
Can we please stop so I can end this channeling of my inner damage control? I can't tell if you were b8ing or what, but this is going to go nowhere if it continues.
