In the news

It sounds bollox when someone uses it to express great losses

Why? There are lots of words which can have different meanings depending on the context (which includes who is using the word). Being aware of context and semantics is just a part of communication.

So, you and I both know this thing about the original use of the word. For years, though, people who never knew that thing have heard the word and reused it with a more dramatic meaning, to the extent that it's by far the most common usage. Personally, I just pay attention when I see/hear it in use and would think carefully before using it myself (probably wouldn't because there are other ways to say it that don't risk confusion). But for some people, it's a (completely pointless) hill to die on. There's nothing wrong with the newer meaning, it just happens to have a different emphasis to the meaning some of us have learned from history books about a long-dead practice. Getting upset about it is like being the kind of person who, when an esoteric word crops up on Q.I., feels the need to tell the whole room "I knew that!" and has a fit because when other people hear him use it from now on, they won't think "Oh, how clever he is because he uses clever words!", they'll think "He heard that on Q.I.". In reality, though, they'll just keep on thinking he's a precious cunt.

FFS, even the people who know the original meaning and don't mean "reduced to 10%" when they use it are probably using it to indicate a reduction that's not exactly 10% and if you care about the value you'll want to check anyway.

It's a lost battle with no purpose.

@markyp The "light years" thing is different. It has a practical, current meaning and there might even be times when you can usefully clarify the misunderstanding, although people who don't know that "light year" is a distance are very unlikely to use it to describe time anyway (outside of conversations about science fiction where most things aren't remotely real or even vaguely realistic, so...)

I always thought it meant to be reduced by a factor of ten, not by a tenth?

Happy to be corrected, mind, but that would at least be consistent with the typical usage to mean very heavy losses.

EDIT: Google indeed tells me I'm wrong...

...it is like being the kind of person who..... bla bla .... they'll just keep on thinking he's a precious cunt.

So you just equated me to this weird straw man of yours who also happens a precious cunt?
Take a deep breath mate, count to ten... enough internet for you today.

literally
/ˈlɪt(ə)rəli/Submit
adverb
in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
"the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout"
synonyms: verbatim, word for word, line for line, letter for letter, to the letter; More
INFORMAL
used for emphasis while not being literally true.
"I was literally blown away by the response I got"

AAARGHH! This is the one that gets me. I can understand words changing their meaning over time, but how can you fuck with the word literally?! Can't we just carry on dismissing people using the word for emphasis as being, like, wrong?

Actually, according to Wikipedia it seems we are both wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)#Procedure

I just went by the original anecdote and the latin meaning of deci-
In any case I guess all of this is less mystifying if you grew up with the metric system and frequently had to deal with decilitres etc.

Can't we just carry on dismissing people using the word for emphasis as being, like, wrong?

No, we can't because you know what? It isn't wrong. It's called hyperbole, and as much as it seems to make you mad that people use it for that purpose, it makes me even madder that you don't seem to understand the point of it.

When people say "I was blown away by that", no one comes along nagging "you weren't actually really blown away, were you". So why is reinforcing the hyperbole with a 'literally' suddenly a problem?

The whole point of it is that of course, they weren't literally blown away.

rofl

I grudgingly accept that this is becoming acceptable usage but it grates in a way that other words don't, because it renders the old usage useless - if "literally" can also mean figuratively, then we no longer have a word that means (old usage) literally. What do you say when you want to mean (with no doubt) actually what you're expressly said?

Quite. Literally seems to be unique in this respect; if definition #2 completely undermines definition #1 what's the point in having that definition? I'll accept that context usually tells you which meaning is meant (like if it's coming from the mouth of a football pundit), but it still feels wrong.

That's not really how this works. 'Literally' really still means the same, and it will only be used the way you complain about as long as it does - ironically, it's the people moaning about its hyperbolic use that have made this a recognised 'issue' and lead to people believing it has actually changed meaning. When this word really no longer means 'in a literal sense', it will have outlived its usefulness to express hyperbole and people will move on to another word.

Or more succinctly - using 'literally' to create a hyperbolic statement does not mean that it now also means 'figuratively': it only works because it doesn't. There is a very big difference between saying "literally blown away" and "figuratively blown away".

This is literally boring

The posting of shite on here is literally making a hole in your head?

Feels like it

Literally seems to be unique in this respect;

ACTUALLY i think you'll find

One of my ancestors survived an actual decimation.

You insensitive fucks.

Unfortunately for the etymological purists, decimate comes from the Medieval Latin word decimatus, which means ‘to tithe’. The word was then assigned retrospectively to the Roman practice of punishing every tenth soldier.

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/09/10/does-decimate-mean-destroy-one-tenth/

One of my ancestors survived an actual decimation.

You insensitive fucks.

Fucking hell.

#trufax

https://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/monument-hill-kreische-brewery

I will PM you something else.....

Quoting David Goldman:-
"As an example, allow me to talk about the word 'literally' - long story short is that today the word 'literally' is used incorrectly to mean the exact opposite to 'literally'. This change has been recorded in several dictionaries so now the word has two meanings, exact opposites to each other. How did this change come about? Hundreds of thousands of (mostly American) children with poor education and limited intelligence used the word so often it came to mean the opposite. This may seem to some as democracy in action; language changing to reflect the people using it. But in essence is the power of mass stupidity that has made this change with absolutely no benefit to society. And so it is with many seemingly popular choices, that they reflect the will of the people. However, as the example shows, just because many people believe one thing, that can still be a stupid thing".

David Goldman

limited intelligence

mass stupidity

He sounds like a cunt

Ironic, the whole thing about 'limited intelligence'. When he isn't even able to recognise that words can be used beyond what they mean literally, on purpose.

I pronounce it "litrally"

HTH

On the subject of boring etymological chat, this is quite interesting quick read: https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/

Or if you want a fun game for your lunch break, you can fill in the correct original usage and compete with your colleagues / the person next to you in the coffee shop / next pod.

Nice:
Silly:
Awful:
Fizzle:
Wench:
Fathom:
Clue:
Myriad:
Naughty:
Eerie:
Spinster:
Bachelor:
Flirt:
Guy:
Hussy:
Egregious:
Quell:
Divest:
Senile:
Meat:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18202335/ai-artificial-intelligence-recruiting-hiring-hr-bias-prejudice

TL:DR if you're not normal maybe we don't have any work for you in the future. (For normal, read, white college educated Silicon Valley employee)

I think part of the beef with new uses for words like this is that it degrades the original meaning, despite the fact that the original meaning is still useful. I think most people would not have an issue with "cool" meaning excellent/trendy etc. because the context would not generally let people confuse it with the original meaning of "a bit cold"; however, when you repurpose words in a similar function to their original meaning you risk impoverishing the language by losing the old meaning. For example, "disinterested" is a really useful word to describe what a judge or referee should be i.e., unbiased (roughly), but it's misused so often now (when people actually mean "uninterested") that fewer and fewer people know that really useful original meaning.

The fact that this process inevitably carries on, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to counter it.