Fiat126@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 days agosocial media rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square44fedilinkarrow-up1698arrow-down18
arrow-up1690arrow-down1imagesocial media rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneFiat126@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 days agomessage-square44fedilink
minus-squareOrbituary@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up28arrow-down13·2 days agoLiterary or literally? (hint: neither are correct.)
minus-squareswitchboard_pete@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up61arrow-down1·2 days agoliterally is objectively correct in this context
minus-squarecan@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down1·2 days agoThe latter is correct, no?
minus-squaresyreus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 hours agoIn the secondary, new-age definition of “literally” yes that’s true. We lost the war for “literally”. It’s now just an emphasis word. The definition is mind bending: 1)in a literal manner or sense; exactly. 2)informal; used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true. On the bright side less people use “absolutely” incorrectly than before.
minus-squarecan@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 hours agoSure, but where in the image do you see someone acknowledge the existence of Threads?
Literary or literally? (hint: neither are correct.)
literally is objectively correct in this context
Literaryly
The latter is correct, no?
In the secondary, new-age definition of “literally” yes that’s true.
We lost the war for “literally”. It’s now just an emphasis word. The definition is mind bending:
1)in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
2)informal; used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
On the bright side less people use “absolutely” incorrectly than before.
Sure, but where in the image do you see someone acknowledge the existence of Threads?