Let's close those tabs and get back up to date!

[conuly]

Well, the Mojave Desert cross issue has been settled. I'm still not happy with it, but you take what you can get.

From Cracked.com, 7 Commonly Corrected Grammar Errors (That Aren't Mistakes)

A quick article on why children lie, and it's all pretty obvious.

A piece on the food stamp challenge in Philly. Yes, you try feeding your kids on less than $2 per meal, no snacks, and then come talk to be about how "unfair" it is that these people still get free lunch in schools.

And an explanation of kangaroo genitals. WTF?

Comments

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

While I won't make a fuss about "hopefully" or "less" vs. "fewer," the misuse of "literally" is STILL wrong even if you understand that the person using it wrongly actually meant "figuratively."

Damn, my grammar police icon get taken away when my userpics expired.

[conuly]

Literally has been used as a general intensifier for a few hundred years now. It's time to give it up, don't you think?

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

So, if I really do mean "literally", what word would you suggest using, once the meaning of "literally" has been diluted to the point of being useless?

[conuly]

It's not useless, it's a perfectly useful intensifier. God only knows why we need so many of them, but that's beside the point.

I suggest you circumlocute if you really, truly need to indicate how non-figurative you're being.

But honestly, how often does that happen?

[conuly]

Besides, I ask you - what's wrong with using "really" in that sense?

[conuly]

Besides, as I've said before myself, it's not any different from "I really exploded that time!" or "You're truly a monster, you know?"

Why does "literally" get treated with scorn when "really" doesn't?