Complaints about the use of “literally” as hyperbole or as a general intensifier amuse me. “Literally” is not being used to mean “figuratively” in those sentences. It is used hyperbolically or for emphasis. Is it an overused emphatic? Sure. But I’ve never come across a use where it was unclear to me in what sense it was being used.
Interesting. I guess it’s just not something I pay attention to.
It’s French. As I said, those French can’t pronounce anything right.
You’re hitting on the point. The vowel sounds like the way non-rhotic Brits pronounce “fur”, and that gets into a fuzzy zone of “did they mean an r or not?” Rhotics then go insert a hard r.
Sounds like a Brit wrote that translation. Nonrhotics tend to insert “er” as their spellings for what a rhotic is going to use “uh” to represent. To a nonrhotic, that encapsulates the sound they want, confusing the hell out of rhotics trying to read it.
Vowels are a spongy mess anyway.
Thanks – and to Inner Stickler. Reading-comprehension fault on my part.
Don’t know how relevant – and posting in haste, without researching – but I believe that “colonel” in Spanish, is “coronel”. In French, if I’m right, “co-lo-nel”. English pronunciation, halfway between the two? Who knows how it all came about… ? (The Germans, in their military, don’t have the word – their equivalent is “oberst”.)
Yep, that’s pretty much it. There’s actually a short Straight Dope column about it.
Ah, I thought of another one: mischievous. There is NO I after the v! Why do people say one there?
I’d say because there are a lot more words spelled with ending -evious than -evous.
That’s on my list of junk English I have heard in the last two weeks. Along with homogenious.
The others that bent my ear near breaking were:
drownded
Basic-est
funnily and
seriouser
And I listen to Public radio! :eek:
Homogeneous is a perfectly good word.
Most of the British don’t speak like you hear on the BBC. In fact I would say at least 75% of the British are very poor English speakers, some of them even worse than Australians.
Mate, there’s no need for that. 
That’s true, but now we have no word to use for what literally used to mean, except for some poor substitutes like actually. I mean, if someone literally jumped out of his shoes (a possibility), how can I convey that without backtracking or elaboration? Everyone just assumes it’s hyperbole from the start, and I have to repeat it to make it clear that the person’s feet left the shoes. It’s become a nuisance.
By George. Alternative form. Didn’t know that. Consider ignorance fought and vanquished.
Just thought of another one: Using ‘worse’ when ‘worst’ is meant. For example, “Dr. Barnes is the worse professor I’ve ever had.”
You learn something new every day.
I’ve given up trying to correct my fellow Realtors, who mispronounce it with three syllables. I kid you not, many do.
I’ve found legit and legitimately creeping into my speech for just such an occasion. “I legit jumped out of my shoes when he burst out of the door.”
And tie your shoelaces next time.
Ok, so am I the only one here under the impression that funnily is a real word? (I mean they’re all real words but funnily is a proper real word, I swear.)
Funnily enough, I always thought that too, Inner Stickler.
I’m with you on that. The best part is the complete absence of complaint about the use of “really” in exactly the same context. If you say, “He really jumped all over you when you told him that,” no snarkybutts say, “What, were you injured?” but try swapping in “literally” and some snarkybutt maven is gonna think it’s worth making an irrelevant joke.
Awhile ago I asked for anyone to give an actual example from real life in which the use of the word “literally” was confusing. Nobody was able to do so, IIRC.
WTH is wrong with “funnily”?