Huh? You want to use “literally” to mean it’s opposite “figuratively”. But you’re criticizing my usage of “blind” and “lazy” because I’m using them figuratively, not literally? Please tell me you’re joking. 
Oh, I grant that. I absolutely grant that. As I believe I’ve said before, there may well be such instances where it can be confusing. But if there are, the ratio of confusing and utterly ambiguous usages to perfectly understandable usages is so very, very small that it’s just not worth worrying about.
If that’s enough for you to determine that the word is detrimental to the English language, then nearly all of the English language is going to be unsuitable for you. Just as a single example, we shouldn’t then use the word post to describe adding messages to the forum, because there may well be a usage that makes someone think about fences and confuses them terribly. And the potential sentence “I was on the fence until I saw that weak post” is just a time bomb waiting to go off.
Absolutely not: your figurative uses of “lazy” and “blind” are incoherent, as I already explained. You may explain their figurative use at any time, if you think they’re not incoherent.
On the other hand, I want folks to be able to use words to mean what they intend to mean; as long as their audiences understand them, then they’re using the language effectively. That is in contrast to your use, which I think doesn’t communicate your intended meaning, because your intended meaning is incoherent. It’s your ideas that are at fault; your use of language just reflects that conceptual incoherence.
Daniel
As far as my experience goes teaching English in Japan, many if not most grammatical mistakes do not lead to misunderstandings unless they are very serious mistakes.
If someone says “Myself go to beach tomorrow with wife and baby.” There are mistakes there, but I think everyone would understand what that person means.
This argument about people not understanding misuse of ‘literally’ is not a good argument. As people say there is very little scope for misunderstanding. But that still does not make the usuage correct.
What would make the usuage correct?
Daniel
Hm, I think there’s also different ways of saying “literally.”
“Someone literally had…”
“Someone had literally…”
There you go! The first means what the old farts want it to mean. The second means what kids want it to mean. I’m sure there’s other such usage pairs, and in the end it’s very easy to tell when literally is used precisely, and when it is used metaphorically. In essence, if you want to be precise, you put more emphasis on “literally”. I LITERALLY saw three chicks making out at once. See? I think I conveyed effectively that they weren’t taking turns.
What I was trying to say was that many people may use a word incorrectly and be understood by most people, but that does not make the usuage correct.
But you haven’t answered the question. If the usage is not correct, what would make it so? Put it another way, who has the authority to determine what is or is not correct in a language?
If that person is understood, how can his usage be said to be “incorrect”? Language serves the purpose of communicaion, nothing else. It’s only “incorrect” in so much as it fails at that task. If someone says “we were literally stuffed in the bus like sardines”, everyone knows that “literally” is being used losely there. What’s the problem other than it grates on the nerves of some langauge Nazis. And they are literally Nazis, too! 
Do you really expect me to start that argument? Dream on. Bayle and Johnmace, you are both wrong and I will not bother to get involved in any argument about it. I am sure you could finds many threads about Descriptive and Prescriptive Grammar.
Well, I agree with you, but only because I think the idea of correct usage (I thought the two U’s in “usage” was a typo the first time, incidentally) is a flawed concept, and so saying that a particular usage is not correct is as misleading as saying that I’ve not stopped beating my wife.
Daniel
Well, that proves it then! If you want to say “non-standard”, then you might have a point. But in this case, I think it’s arguable what is standard and what is not. Langauges do change, and if most people use a word a certain way, then that’s the way it is. Otherwise, anything other than the original Indo-European usage would considered “incorrect”. (I just pick that language because we really don’t know what was spoken before that).
Generally, I think English would gain expressivity with fewer rules. Not no rules, of course, but fewer rules. Just ask Shakespeare.
Prescriptionism is usually (not as an idea, but in practice) about what particular people like personally. This debate is a perfect example of that.
My first post on this topic stipulated that in cases where there is intent to use “literally” as an intensifier because of the opposite meaning then it could be considered acceptable. So I’m agreeing with you on that part. I don’t see the logic in you calling my ideas at fault when I’m agreeing with you.
On the other topic, I will restate that many use “literallly” blindly and lazily, and in those cases it is not acceptable. Since you’ve stated this is incoherent so you don’t understand what I mean by this…
*
Blind: Performed without preparation, forethought, or knowledge <a blind effort>
Lazy: Resistant to work or exertion.
- Webster’s II New Riverside Edition*
Using the original example: saying “went” instead of “said” is blind, as in performed without knowledge of the proper meaning of “went”, and is lazy, as in mentally resistant to employing the necessary thought to pick the proper word “said”.
And so the cycle ends, to begin again in the future as a phoenix rising from the ashes.
Since blinkingblinking doesn’t want to continue, I’ll ask you: who determines whether or not it’s acceptable?
I totally agree. The rules are flexible enough that an intentional usage of a new intensifier is allowable, but without having the complete chaos of having words used regardless of their meaning.
Trust me: you’re not agreeing with me, and to the extent that you think you are, you misunderstand my point.
- It’s not blind, because you’ve still not explained what you mean by the “proper meaning of” went. I submit that this is a fantasy.
- It’s not any lazier than you’re lazy for not employing the necessary thought to pick the word “went” instead of “said.” A person may almost always choose among multiple words to convey their meaning; if choosing one word instead of an alternative makes a person lazy, every word anyone ever speaks conveys their laziness.
Again: your idea of “proper meanings of words” as something separate from what the speaker intends and the audience understands is weird and mystical.
Daniel
Try reading the OP. Actually reading the OP is always a good idea especially for people like you.
I was not starting a post about what is right and wrong was I? I was asking what does the word mean.
Debate evolves, just like language. A strict reading of your OP suggests it would have been better placed in GQ, but it wasn’t. Your question was answered early on, and the discussion turned to the usual ‘this isn’t the right usage’/‘it is if enough people think it is’/‘but it’s wrong!’ exchange that usually happens. If you wanted to keep that out of the discussion, you might have included a stronger disclaimer other than ‘I’ll always think it’s wrong.’