• samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is hyperbole, but the problem is that it’s using a word that was supposed to specify that something was not hyperbole as hyperbole, rendering it useless.

        • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Incorrect. People have been using it the way you are complaining about for hundreds of years. It’s a new phenomenon that people complain about it being used the way you disapprove of. I’d attribute the recent complaints to lack of literary exposure and anti intellectualism in recent years.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except some of the earliest uses of the word “literally” that didn’t pertain to letters and glyps we in the form of hyperbole.
      Literal as factual and literal as exaggeration both about the same age and precedent, and have been used long enough that it’s just part of the English language at this point.
      May as well complain about how “discreet” and “indiscreet” are opposites, but “flammable” and “inflammable” are the same.

      https://people.sc.fsu.edu/~jburkardt/fun/wordplay/autoanto.html

      English is a language of contradictions and massively confusing syntax. News at 11.