# Literally means figuratively **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 2, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546 "2016-08-02T13:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 69
**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:** [August 5, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/69 "2016-08-05T18:56:49Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > :smack: > > There is no modern linguist who will argue that the general intensifier use of literally is wrong, due to ignorance or a mistake. You are very much on the opposite side of language as a science in this matter. That’s a meaningless comment, since linguistics as a science is empirical and objective. If some aspect of language is in common use, linguistics may interest itself in this empirical fact, but not in passing judgment on it. Science doesn’t have “sides” – it observes and reports. And no one denies that this usage of “literally” is quite widespread. Whether one might personally regard such usage as stupid and regressive is a different matter. Linguists [can be mercilessly critical of poor language usage](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/) in isolated instances, but as a group they tend to be diehard descriptivists and readily accepting of common usage as a _fait accompli_ and even admiring of colloquialisms and dialects no matter how far removed from the norms of the mainstream language. I think it’s a little bit like studying some strange two-headed mutant fish – it’s scientifically interesting, the word “wrong” just doesn’t apply, but you definitely wouldn’t want to be one! --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546)._