I still think there are different standards for filler words during conversations and titles in writing. In this case, the post title is simply a lie.
For example:
Title: Florida Man Actually has Three Legs.
Content: guy’s got such a big dick, he’s practically a tripod.
In this case, that’s a misleading title.
Edit: I also wanted to add that a title is parsed on its own, without context. Of course, “literally” can mean “not literally”, but one needs context to figure that out. In this title, such context is not there.
In English, the plural “there are” is collapsing into the singular “there’s” such as “there’s five cars over there”. A lot of language changes happen this way. It annoys people who think about language.
“There’s” is at least easier to say and is only a grammar issue, English has always been really flexible about grammar. The “literally” thing is lexical, they just straight-up turned a useful word into a decorative but meaningless one. Now I always have to ask people if they mean “literally” literally, only I can’t know if they’ll answer me correctly because if they’re misusing “literally” then they probably don’t know the literal definition of “literally”. It’s insidious!
I don’t think OP knows what literally means. The wsj did not ask the question in the title. It asked a different question.
Oh I’m with you, but I stopped fighting for the word “literally” when the damn dictionaries gave up and added shit like this:
That other guys link says they did that over a hundred years ago.
But I guess that was just for the unabridged dictionary.
So literally is literally when not literally now?
Alas, it is a mere emphasis modifier.
Literally.
I still think there are different standards for filler words during conversations and titles in writing. In this case, the post title is simply a lie. For example:
Title: Florida Man Actually has Three Legs.
Content: guy’s got such a big dick, he’s practically a tripod.
In this case, that’s a misleading title.
Edit: I also wanted to add that a title is parsed on its own, without context. Of course, “literally” can mean “not literally”, but one needs context to figure that out. In this title, such context is not there.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally
Thanks for the link, this was a good read. OP’s title still sucks.
In English, the plural “there are” is collapsing into the singular “there’s” such as “there’s five cars over there”. A lot of language changes happen this way. It annoys people who think about language.
“There’s” is at least easier to say and is only a grammar issue, English has always been really flexible about grammar. The “literally” thing is lexical, they just straight-up turned a useful word into a decorative but meaningless one. Now I always have to ask people if they mean “literally” literally, only I can’t know if they’ll answer me correctly because if they’re misusing “literally” then they probably don’t know the literal definition of “literally”. It’s insidious!