Literally

[kirisutogomen]

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pushing for year-round schools:

Children, he said, "get to a certain point academically in June and over the summer, they lose that."

By September, he said, "it's literally taking a step backward."

Arne Duncan graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, was appointed CEO of the Chicago Public Schools in 2001, and then was named Secretary of Education for these United States by President Barack Obama. And he doesn't know what the word "literally" means.

Usually I just grit my teeth and move on. But this guy is the fucking head of education for the country. Apparently because he plays basketball with the President rather than for any sort of relevant abilities.

---

On a lighter note:

Today, I was flirting via text with a coworker. Things started getting heated, and I wanted to send her a sexy picture. I asked if she had any suggestions. She said, "Your nuts!" [...] I sent her a photo of my junk.

Comments

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

First, I wondered when something counts as new usage instead of wrong usage. Then, I wondered how new it actually was. The OED seems to date this improper usage back to 1687. ("Now often improperly used to indicate that some conventional metaphorical or hyperbolical phrase is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense. (So, e.g., in quot. 1863.))

(The quotation from 1863 was someone who said he was "literally coining money" when presumably he was just making an excessive profit.)

[kirisutogomen.livejournal.com]

This is in fact an interesting question. I am totally in favor of using they/them/their as genderless singular third-person pronouns, despite a lot of complaints, and I would cite evidence from 1687 to back up my case.

On the other hand, I abhor the use of "infer" to mean "imply," even though that can be attested way the hell back. And I think this use of "literally" to mean "not literally" is also no good.

I'd have to collect more data, but I think it has to do with whether the usage degrades the quality of communication. It's useful to have different words for implication and inference, and blurring the distinction just makes it harder to communicate accurately. Similarly, using "literally" to mean "figuratively but a lot" seems to me to blur a useful distinction and make it harder to actually communicate.

OTOH, we totally need third-person singular genderless pronouns, and the potential confusion with the plural strikes me as so much less significant that it's easily a worthwhile "change".

What I really need is a Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage.

[crs.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen "infer" and "imply" mixed up in a long, long time; are people still doing that?

[kirisutogomen.livejournal.com]

The truth about infer (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=471)

[rifmeister.livejournal.com]

To quote the not-exactly-immortal Dr. Nick Riviera, "Inflammable means flammable? Ugh, what a country!"

[kirisutogomen.livejournal.com]

The Word We Love To Hate (Literally) (http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/)

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

I am not, however, surprised, to find you on the same side as Ambrose Bierce.

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

He was using "literally" figuratively.

Not that I don't agree with you. A secretary of education ought to be pedantic.