They’re literally whores. By this, of course, I mean that they’re figuratively whores.
No, no. They’re literary whores.
I use the word “literally” literally.
I think my favourite (mis)use of “literally” was when I was at a bar, and I heard a bartender tell a coworker about a time when he was “literally shit-faced.” I really hope he was just talking about being really drunk. 
So, not to put too fine a point on it, the hell what? Language changes at a glacial pace, and everyone is perfectly capable of keeping up with that pace. If someone decides to use “quite literally” in that context in the future, then its meaning will still be crystal-clear, and the pedants will wail and gnash their teeth to exactly the same degree, and the stars will shine as bright and the roses smell as sweet.
Even looking at “penultimate,” I’m more interested in why the change is happening than in regretting the change. I suspect that the driving force behind the change in penultimate’s meaning is twofold:
- The phrase “next to last” is more common, shorter, and easier to understand, while still meaning the same thing as “penultimate’s” traditional meaning; and
- “Ultimate’s” primary meaning has changed from “last” to “apotheosis.” Ultimate frisbee is the best way to play frisbee, not the end of frisbees; the ultimate in camera technology doesn’t herald a coming breakdown of camera advancement, but rather indicates that the current technology is the best you’ll get.
With that said, “almost ultimate” is a weird phrase, taking something that emphasize “very best” or “quintessential” and removing exactly the thing that makes “ultimate” a powerful word (under its new meaning). So people think it must mean “like really, the very best, y’know?”
And while I kind of get the sadness over the change in the word’s meaning, mostly I’m excited to see how language changes to fit the needs of its current speakers.
It seems to me that just because a dictionary describes an ignorant usage of a word, the usage doesn’t magically stop being ignorant. I wouldn’t correct someone’s usage of literally in casual conversation, but if I were an employer choosing between two equally qualified applicants and one of them misused literally in the interview, that would definitely count as a ding.
There was a guy I used to work with who thought he knew more than he did. And part of this was reflected in his vocabulary.
Normally when he misused a word, you could figure out what he thought he was saying from the context. But on some occasions there was genuine confusion.
One was his use of the word recant. He somehow latched on to the notion that it meant repeat. So I would ask him a question like “Did you investigate that letter the prisoner wrote about not getting his laundry?” And he’d say something like, “Yeah, I went and interviewed him and he recanted what he said in the letter.” Because of his misunderstanding of what recant means, I now had the false impression that the prisoner had dropped his complaint. This happened a few times before I realized what he was really trying to say.
Another example was his use of remember and recall. I would sometimes ask him if he remembered a certain incident and he would respond that he did not recall the incident. At first I didn’t take note of that but I began to notice how he responded by saying he didn’t recall something when I had asked him if he had remembered something. So I asked him why he did this and I was surprised to discover he had two different meanings for these words. In his mind there was some distinction (which I was never clear on) between remembering something and recalling something and he felt that if he said he didn’t recall it he was somehow covering himself for denying something which he did, in fact, remember.
So what magical wellspring do you imagine words derive their correct meaning from? Do scientists discover words buried on tablets deep beneath volcanoes? Do mathematicians derive their meanings from cubing prime numbers? Do angels whisper the true meanings of words into the ears of sleeping lit majors?
From where I stand, the only ignorance in this thread is from people who think that words have some meaning that’s divorced from how people use and understand them.
Do scientists and mathematicians just make stuff up and let other people figure them out? “Ooh, ooh, language is dynamic!”
I can accept this as a legitimate extension of the word’s meaning through metaphor. It’s basically saying that if you ordered all of the items on a list by some quantity, the last item on the list would be the one that had the most of this quantity. So in that sense you could say, for example, that Superman is the ultimate superhero because he is the last in order of power even though he is not the last in chronological order. You’re still maintaining the idea of last being last, you’re just counting what’s last by a different means.
Penultimate, on the other hand, means second to the last. Using it to mean the last or somehow beyond the last is simply a different meaning and one which contradicts its original meaning.
No. But authors and artists do. AND SO DO PEOPLE SPEAKING IN CONVERSATION.
What scientists do is they study the world as it is. The people that tell others what they should do are called ministers, rabbis, or judges.
There IS no magical source of word’s meanings. The only source of that meaning is the interaction between the person speaking and the person listening.
To save you some time, your next move is to mention “glory.”
Penultimate used to mean “second to last.” Now, however, it can mean either “second to last” or “the best of the best.” That’s because the way people use the word–and the way people understand the word–has changed. And that’s okay.
Because if you discount the literal meaning of literally, then there’s no difference in meaning between “I blew a gasket” and “I literally blew a gasket”. The two phrases have the exact same meaning and one of them just has an extra word added for no reason. “I literally blew a gasket” has the same meaning as “I rhetorically blew a gasket” or “I superfluously blew a gasket” or “I hypoallergenicly blew a gasket”. All of these have the same meaning: “Look at me, I’m using a big word.”
Penultimate and ultimate used to be two different words that meant two different things. Now they’re two words that both mean the same thing. That means the English language now effectively has one less word than it used to have. The language has been diminished by a small part.
Authors have editors. Artists can do whatever they want I guess. You know who else gets to decide what words mean? People. If enough people insist a word doesn’t mean what someone else thinks it means, ignorance is fought. We don’t have to let every single misused word pass because everyone is a unique and precious little flower.
Leaving aside that the word isn’t added “for no reason,” let’s just go with it. So what? So what if there are words that can be omitted without changing the meaning of a sentence substantially?
I don’t think you understand. We know what the word means. We are using it in a figurative sense. If you don’t like it, so be it, but the ship has sailed on “literally,” no matter how hard you try to yell into the wind. I particularly find this interesting: “If enough people insist a word doesn’t mean what someone else thinks it means, ignorance is fought” because I exactly agree with that, but that’s supporting my case of “literally” being used hyperbolically, because that’s how [many] people use it.
Makes me sick. Literally, I felt physical nausea when I read that.
Yes–and that’s what’s happening. Enough people have insisted that “literally” means something that you don’t think it means. Your ignorance is being fought. It looks like it’s winning.
Of course there is: it’s the same difference as between “I blew a gasket” and “I really blew a gasket.” It’s an intensifier. Do you not know what an intensifier is, do you not believe in them, or do you somehow think, despite all evidence to the contrary, that “literally” is never used as one?
Humpty Dumpty?