# I have a coworker who uses 'literally' incorrectly **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 27, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834 "2016-05-27T17:46:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/61 "2016-05-28T17:39:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re wrong. The real meaning of this word is a genuine and distinct meaning. “Real meaning”? What, the other meanings are fake meanings, forgeries, not authenticated by the Word Police? Your claim is incoherent, and you’re not in a position to criticize other folks for muddled language use. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/62 "2016-05-28T17:42:20Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Q.E.D. I assume “Q.E.D.” is short for “I don’t understand the difference between using a word in hyperbolic sense and using a word incorrectly\* because I don’t know what it means”. :rolleyes: * * * \*Granted that some sources now attribute two opposite meanings to “literally” but that’s not my point – it only got that way through incorrect usage. I still maintain it’s undesirable usage. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/63 "2016-05-28T17:45:19Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > \*Granted that some sources now attribute two opposite meanings to “literally” No they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/64 "2016-05-28T17:56:28Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No they don’t. If used as a meaningless intensifier, I consider it the opposite of the original and proper meaning of “literally”. You may feel otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/65 "2016-05-28T17:56:54Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No they don’t. Merriam Webster online does have a rather poorly written second definition that could be interpreted that way. But I don’t think there’s any confusion about actual usage, where it’s used as a metaphorical intensifier, analogous with _incredibly_. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/66 "2016-05-28T18:03:45Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > If used as a meaningless intensifier, I consider it the opposite of the original and proper meaning of “literally”. You may feel otherwise. “Feel” has nothing to do with it. First, intensifiers are not meaningless; if you don’t know how to use them, consult any good writing tutor. Second, that’s not what “opposite” means. An intensifier is no more the opposite of a word meaning “in actuality” than a cat is the opposite of a pineapple. They’re two different things. > [@Riemann](#): > > Merriam Webster online does have a rather poorly written second definition that could be interpreted that way. Huh–I suppose “virtually” can mean the opposite of “in actuality,” although the relevant meaning is “in effect.” M-W has a great list of excellent authors who use the word “literally” as an intensifier, from James Joyce to William Makepeace Thackeray. It’s wonderful how much more adroit at using language **Little Nemo** and **wolfpup** are than those amateurs! ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/67 "2016-05-28T18:07:36Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > If used as a meaningless intensifier, I consider it the opposite of the original and proper meaning of “literally”. You may feel otherwise. _ **IRONY WARNING** _ The way that you are using _opposite_ is reprehensible and ignorant, it diminishes the richness of our language. _Opposite_ has a genuine and distinct meaning. _The opposite of X_ does not mean _anything other than X_. \ ***ALL CLEAR** ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/68 "2016-05-28T18:15:03Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > _ **IRONY WARNING** _ > > The way that you are using _opposite_ is reprehensible and ignorant, it diminishes the richness of our language. _Opposite_ has a genuine and distinct meaning. > > _The opposite of X_ does not mean _anything other than X_. > > \ ***ALL CLEAR** And when we’re saying your use of the word literally is the opposite of its real meaning, we mean it’s literally the opposite of its real meaning. Unfortunately, we can’t express that in your version of English. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/69 "2016-05-28T18:18:17Z")
> [@Tread](#): > > Meaningless… like: > > Left ---- To depart… or remain—I left the room, and my wife was left. > > Dust – to apply OR to remove dust. Dust the table, , but not before we dust for fingerprints. > > Seed – To add seeds… Or to remove seed. Seed these peppers, while I go seed the back yard. > Fast to move quickly… or not move at all. When I asked you to get my color fast shirt, you sure moved fast. > > Off — to put in state where is will not operate, or to operate. I turned my alarm off, so it would not go off, and wake me Saturday morning. > > Screen – to show, or hide from view. I had to screen my daughter from the TV where they were about to screen the new Tom Cruse film. > But … yeah, I hate the word being used that way, and will never accept it as correct usage. I think each one of those is a somewhat strained example of related concepts rather than true opposites. Left - the opposite of “left” in the sense of “leaving” is “arrived”. Something “left behind” is a different usage. Dust, seed - just a short form of a related concept, like “bone” meaning to remove bones from. Those short forms seem to crop up in house and kitchen work. Fast - fast relating to speed and “fast” in “color fast” which is the same form as “hold fast” and probably comes from the same root as “fasten” are different words. Off - the opposite is “on”. “Go off” is the same form as “set off” and is a different usage. Screen - the apparent contradiction comes from “screen” as a physical object, which can be used to hide things (a Japanese screen in a room) or to project a movie on. Not really opposites. The supposed alternate meaning of “literally” is a lot like teenagers referring to something as “bad” to mean that it’s very good. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/70 "2016-05-28T18:18:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And when we’re saying your use of the word literally is the opposite of its real meaning, we mean it’s literally the opposite of its real meaning. Yes, it’s clear what you intend. You’re incorrect. Nobody uses “literally” to signify “not literally.” To the extent that M-W claims that’s an established meaning, they’re incorrect. If you think you can show an instance of “literally” being used in the wild to indicate to the audience that the phrase is not literal, please show us. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/71 "2016-05-28T18:22:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > “Feel” has nothing to do with it. First, intensifiers are not meaningless; if you don’t know how to use them, consult any good writing tutor. Second, that’s not what “opposite” means. An intensifier is no more the opposite of a word meaning “in actuality” than a cat is the opposite of a pineapple. They’re two different things. No - and the fact that you believe this is an indication of the problem. The real meaning of literally is to express the fact that your statement is not figurative or exaggerated or intensified. So when you use it as a meaningless intensifier, you are using it in its literal opposite meaning. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/72 "2016-05-28T18:41:13Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > The way that you are using _opposite_ is reprehensible and ignorant, it diminishes the richness of our language. _Opposite_ has a genuine and distinct meaning. I see. Let’s just explore that below. > [@Riemann](#): > > Merriam Webster online does have a rather poorly written second definition that could be interpreted that way. > > But I don’t think there’s any confusion about actual usage, where it’s used as a **metaphorical** intensifier, analogous with _incredibly_. Bolding and underline mine. No, there is indeed vast confusion here, and it’s all on your part. You fail to see the difference between simple hyperbole and incorrect usage (or at least, confusing and undesirable usage). You just informed us that “literally” can be used as “a metaphorical intensifier”. Do you understand what “metaphorical” means? According to my handy old Encarta dictionary, it means “figurative language”. According to [Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor), a “metaphor” is “_ **a figure of speech** in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : **figurative language** _”. So you’re telling us that this new use of “literally” is metaphorical, which dictionaries inform us means “figurative”, which my handy dictionary defines as “not literal”, but apparently I’m “reprehensible and ignorant” for considering the two contradictory usages to be opposites. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/73 "2016-05-28T18:42:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Go\_Arachnid\_Laser > “He literally glowed; without a word or a gesture of exultation a new well-being radiated from him and filled the little room.” > > F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby Now, see, that’s what I meant! That’s using “literally” to mean “as it is in literature,” and that’s okay. When you are F. Scott Fucking Fitzgerald, everything you write is literature. Literally ! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/74 "2016-05-28T18:48:36Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The real meaning of literally …is an incoherent concept that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of language. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/75 "2016-05-28T18:49:41Z")
Setting the snark aside for a moment: Linguistics (including the evolution of language) is an empirical science. Linguists don’t make value judgements about the way people speak, any more than a physicist gets annoyed at the behavior of photons. To a linguist, the way people speak is data, and the true underlying rules of language are derived empirically from the data. And it’s _fascinating_ to observe and try to understand how language spontaneously evolves. Then there is prescriptivist peeving about things like _literally_. It’s perfectly reasonable to express stylistic opinions about current usage. But prescriptivists always seek to invent pseudoscientific _objective justifications_ for their personal opinions, and they lack the insight that a usage that seems awkward and inelegant to them _may seem perfectly natural to somebody else who speaks a slightly different dialect_. And that may include your own children - the next generation are often the drivers of linguistic evolution. The themes of prescriptivists are always the same: the language is in decay, the erudite must make a stand against ignorance; if we accept a drift or expansion of meaning, we will no longer be able to express ourselves clearly; it said so in Strunk and White. Prescriptivists also commonly misrepresent linguistics (i.e. descriptivist linguistics) as “anything goes”, which is nonsense. But, ultimately, it’s not just that prescriptivist peeving is based on arrogance and ignorance. It’s just so _boring_ compared to the fascinating process of how language really behaves. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/76 "2016-05-28T19:22:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … apparently I’m “reprehensible and ignorant” … I did say _ **IRONY WARNING** _ to make clear that I was parodying the prescriptivist position, rather than trying to insult you. It might have been nice if you had left that in when you quoted me, but no biggie. Honestly, this has been the most civilized discussion of a prescriptivist peeve that I can remember in years. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_Arachnid_Laser_1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/77 "2016-05-28T19:38:59Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, there is indeed vast confusion here, and it’s all on your part. You fail to see the difference between simple hyperbole and incorrect usage (or at least, confusing and undesirable usage). But the usage is neither incorrect nor confusing or undesirable. It’s a perfectly reasonable form of hyperbole. Think about it like this, if you say: _"Yo mama so fat that she’s, and this is completely true, classified as a planet._" Everyone realizes immediately that you don’t actually believe their mother has been classified as such, that you are claiming that something’s true as a form of hyperbole. Just like, if you said: _“Yo mama so fat that, and this is not a joke, she jumped in the air and got stuck”._ Again, nobody thinks you’ve gone insane and lost your ability to tell a joke apart from reality. It’s obvious to everyone that you are using hyperbole. It’s part of the joke. Even if taken, well, literally, it would seem like a contradiction in terms. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/78 "2016-05-28T20:04:30Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Setting the snark aside for a moment: Is it “snark” [to point out that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19364602&postcount=72) after all the shrill declarations that the two different uses of “literally” are not opposites, that _ **your own definition** _ establishes them to be exact opposites? > [@Riemann](#): > > Linguistics (including the evolution of language) is an empirical science. Linguists don’t make value judgements about the way people speak, any more than a physicist gets annoyed at the behavior of photons. To a linguist, the way people speak is data, and the true underlying rules of language are derived empirically from the data. And it’s _fascinating_ to observe and try to understand how language spontaneously evolves. Do you deny that there are stupid people who use language badly and frequently make all manner of stupid mistakes? Is it “fascinating” to observe people write “could of” and “would of”? How does this fascinating practice advance the language? Personally I am fascinated by really good writers practicing their craft. Much less so by random morons evolving the language by writing “I could of went to there party but i dint becuz i had to study stupid grammer.” > [@Riemann](#): > > Prescriptivists also commonly misrepresent linguistics (i.e. descriptivist linguistics) as “anything goes”, which is nonsense. What I’ve observed is a number of literary descriptivists on this board defending idiotic usage while actually writing flawlessly themselves. The matter of what constitutes acceptable deviation and how this differs from “anything goes” has never been addressed except in meaningless huffing generalities. I would think that randomly using a word to mean its exact opposite is not exactly conducive to the evolution of coherent language. But I literally could of cared less. The English, she is fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/79 "2016-05-28T21:06:29Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > …Do you deny that there are stupid people who use language badly and frequently make all manner of stupid mistakes? Is it “fascinating” to observe people write “could of” and “would of”? How does this fascinating practice advance the language? **Personally I am fascinated by really good writers practicing their craft.** Much less so by random morons evolving the language by writing “I could of went to there party but i dint becuz i had to study stupid grammer.” > > What I’ve observed is a number of literary descriptivists on this board defending idiotic usage while actually writing flawlessly themselves. **The matter of what constitutes acceptable deviation and how this differs from “anything goes” has never been addressed except in meaningless huffing generalities.** I would think that randomly using a word to mean its exact opposite is not exactly conducive to the evolution of coherent language. But I literally could of cared less. The English, she is fascinating. [My bold] To speak to the matters in bold above: I, too, love great writing. That’s really something aesthetically quite distinct from a fascination with linguistics. By analogy: I find desert flowers particularly beautiful, I try to spend time in the spring hiking in the Southwest; and I’m a biologist, so of course I’m also fascinated by the process of biological evolution. There’s some overlap in the sense that flowers are a product of evolution; but that’s not what I’m thinking about most of the time when I marvel at them. Here, when you’re peeving about _literally_, it’s hard to believe that it has anything to do with a concern for great writing. After all, you’ve been given an example above of use in this sense by Fitzgerald; the Merriam-W online dictionary has citations from Thackeray and James Joyce. It would be easy to find dozens more from great literature. But this carries no weight for you. Here’s an article by Geoff Pullum, I’ll excerpt a teaser. [Everything Is Correct vs Nothing Is Relevant](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html) > [@](#): > > [A commenter] cannot see any possibility of a position other than two extremes: on the left, that all honest efforts at uttering sentences are ipso facto correct; and on the right, that rules of grammar have an authority that derives from something independent of what any users of the language actually do. But there had better be a third position, because these two extreme ones are both utterly insane… And from later in the article > [@](#): > > …none of the foregoing has anything to do with prescriptive claims about grammar, which are a whole different story. Prescriptivists claim that there are certain rules which have authority over us even if they are not respected as correctness conditions in the ordinary usage of anybody. You can tell them, “All writers of English sometimes use pronouns that have genitive noun phrase determiners as antecedents; Shakespeare did; Churchill did; Queen Elizabeth does; you did in your last book, a dozen times” (see here and here for early Language Log posts on this); and they just say, “Well then, I must try even harder, because regardless of what anyone says or writes, the prohibition against genitive antecedents is valid and ought to be respected by all of us.” To prescriptivists of this sort, there is just nothing you can say, because they do not acknowledge any circumstances under which they might conceivably find that they are wrong about the language. If they believe infinitives shouldn’t be split, it won’t matter if you can show that every user of English on the planet has used split infinitives, they’ll still say that nonetheless it’s just wrong. That’s the opposite insanity to “anything that occurs is correct”: it says “nothing that occurs is relevant”. Both positions are completely nuts. But there is a rather more subtle position in the middle that isn’t. And, sorry but it’s literally impossible to say this in a way that doesn’t sound patronizing, but it’s clear that you’re arguing from a perspective of complete ignorance about linguistics. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834/80 "2016-05-28T22:26:18Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Is it “snark” [to point out that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19364602&postcount=72) after all the shrill declarations that the two different uses of “literally” are not opposites, that _ **your own definition** _ establishes them to be exact opposites? You’ve lost this argument due to not knowing what you’re talking about, so I’ll just point out that “shrill” has some misogynist undertones to it, implying that your debate partner is speaking in the sort of high-pitched feminine tones that betrays an emotional argument rather than an intellectual one. By feminizing your opponents’ supposed tone, you dismiss them. It’s misogynist, and now that you’re aware of it, you shouldn’t use “shrill” in this manner any more. Edit: FYI, “screech” has the same sort of problem. Edit 2: THIS is how one criticizes word usage, based on implications and shades of meaning, not based on ignorant misconceptions about nonexistent linguistic authorities. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-coworker-who-uses-literally-incorrectly/755834.md?page=5)