<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Literally</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/</link>
	<description>The Art and Craft of Blogging</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 01:48:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: thinker007</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-124444</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[thinker007]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-124444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good one :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good one <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thinker007</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-124441</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[thinker007]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-124441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hmm. I have to admit that what you said about &#039;literally&#039; being a dead-weight in most instances is quite correct. 

The only linguistic argument I can still pose is that slang is not necessarily to be frowned upon. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively. Granted, if you&#039;re talking to the queen of England, she won&#039;t understand &quot;yo, dawg, whatsup&quot;, but the reverse is also true. If you&#039;re talking to a ghetto kid in high English he/she will be like &#039;uh-uh&#039; with a face that beams attitude. 

So language and its prescriptions are relative and, just as in any post-modern mindset, there is no right and wrong, but just a better/worse. So is it really that bad using &#039;literally&#039;? I feel as if arguing about it may be worse than actually just using it. Saying that, of course (after all this) I may be a bit of a hypocrite :P (logical consistency is very difficult to harvest after all).

Happy blogging :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm. I have to admit that what you said about &#8216;literally&#8217; being a dead-weight in most instances is quite correct. </p>
<p>The only linguistic argument I can still pose is that slang is not necessarily to be frowned upon. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively. Granted, if you&#8217;re talking to the queen of England, she won&#8217;t understand &#8220;yo, dawg, whatsup&#8221;, but the reverse is also true. If you&#8217;re talking to a ghetto kid in high English he/she will be like &#8216;uh-uh&#8217; with a face that beams attitude. </p>
<p>So language and its prescriptions are relative and, just as in any post-modern mindset, there is no right and wrong, but just a better/worse. So is it really that bad using &#8216;literally&#8217;? I feel as if arguing about it may be worse than actually just using it. Saying that, of course (after all this) I may be a bit of a hypocrite <img src='http://s2.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' />  (logical consistency is very difficult to harvest after all).</p>
<p>Happy blogging <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Means to Survive: A Justification for Blogging &#171; everyday gurus</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-123754</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Means to Survive: A Justification for Blogging &#171; everyday gurus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-123754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] me and her. She loves and accepts me with all my flaws, inadequacies, and mistakes. She is quite literally a part of [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] me and her. She loves and accepts me with all my flaws, inadequacies, and mistakes. She is quite literally a part of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jelzmar</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-123749</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jelzmar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:52:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-123749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(It wouldn&#039;t let me directly reply.) The non-purpose of saying literally is also part of the issue. In any sentence when it is &#039;mis&#039;used (and most of the time when used correctly) it is a useless word (much in the same way we use most &#039;ly&#039; words needlessly.)

If you omit a word and the sentence retains its context, then the word is useless.

&#039;I laughed so hard I pissed myself&#039; and &#039;I laughed so hard I literally pissed myself&#039; mean the same thing. Either way we aren&#039;t hearing &#039;literally&#039; and knowing it means &#039;figuratively&#039; in this circumstance. We are seeing the lack of pissed pants or figuring it out from the tone of voice or our previous social experience with this phrase that it is meant figuratively. 

The phrase itself and more importantly the word itself isn&#039;t giving us any information we need and is dead weight when we used in this way. I get that it is ment to be funny, but it isn&#039;t any funnier than omitting the word all together. Along with that, I don&#039;t think anyone puts too much thought into it. They know what the words mean, they heard someone say it this way once upon a time, people laughed, so they repeated it hoping to get people to laugh. 

Most of the people around me don&#039;t use this and if they do they are trying to be funny (by making fun of people who use it to mean figuratively), but I wouldn&#039;t get into debate about it if someone around me did have it slip out. People repeat what they hear. That&#039;s how we learn language.

The idea that bothers me is making it be considered proper. People use slang and they misuse words for humor. That&#039;s fine. Just don&#039;t try to make it be considered proper just because the joke is so old it isn&#039;t funny anymore. As someone mentioned earlier, just because many people can&#039;t remember the difference between their, there, and they&#039;re or to, too, and two doesn&#039;t mean we should make it proper English that they are all interchangeable. 

In the same way, just because a lot of people find it funny to use words to mean the opposite of themselves doesn&#039;t mean we should make that part of their proper usage. 

If we did this with just about anything else, I don&#039;t think people would find it so cute or interesting or funny. Switch right and left around or stop and go and you&#039;ll have plenty of pissed off people. It is only because literally is a throw-a-way word and it changes nothing in the sentence that some people have no problem with while others are only annoyed by it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(It wouldn&#8217;t let me directly reply.) The non-purpose of saying literally is also part of the issue. In any sentence when it is &#8216;mis&#8217;used (and most of the time when used correctly) it is a useless word (much in the same way we use most &#8216;ly&#8217; words needlessly.)</p>
<p>If you omit a word and the sentence retains its context, then the word is useless.</p>
<p>&#8216;I laughed so hard I pissed myself&#8217; and &#8216;I laughed so hard I literally pissed myself&#8217; mean the same thing. Either way we aren&#8217;t hearing &#8216;literally&#8217; and knowing it means &#8216;figuratively&#8217; in this circumstance. We are seeing the lack of pissed pants or figuring it out from the tone of voice or our previous social experience with this phrase that it is meant figuratively. </p>
<p>The phrase itself and more importantly the word itself isn&#8217;t giving us any information we need and is dead weight when we used in this way. I get that it is ment to be funny, but it isn&#8217;t any funnier than omitting the word all together. Along with that, I don&#8217;t think anyone puts too much thought into it. They know what the words mean, they heard someone say it this way once upon a time, people laughed, so they repeated it hoping to get people to laugh. </p>
<p>Most of the people around me don&#8217;t use this and if they do they are trying to be funny (by making fun of people who use it to mean figuratively), but I wouldn&#8217;t get into debate about it if someone around me did have it slip out. People repeat what they hear. That&#8217;s how we learn language.</p>
<p>The idea that bothers me is making it be considered proper. People use slang and they misuse words for humor. That&#8217;s fine. Just don&#8217;t try to make it be considered proper just because the joke is so old it isn&#8217;t funny anymore. As someone mentioned earlier, just because many people can&#8217;t remember the difference between their, there, and they&#8217;re or to, too, and two doesn&#8217;t mean we should make it proper English that they are all interchangeable. </p>
<p>In the same way, just because a lot of people find it funny to use words to mean the opposite of themselves doesn&#8217;t mean we should make that part of their proper usage. </p>
<p>If we did this with just about anything else, I don&#8217;t think people would find it so cute or interesting or funny. Switch right and left around or stop and go and you&#8217;ll have plenty of pissed off people. It is only because literally is a throw-a-way word and it changes nothing in the sentence that some people have no problem with while others are only annoyed by it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lisalday111711</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-123615</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[lisalday111711]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-123615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Its the EFFECT VS AFFECT that drives me bonkers......&quot;Cancers has severally affected my health but I will not let its effects bring me down......&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its the EFFECT VS AFFECT that drives me bonkers&#8230;&#8230;&#8221;Cancers has severally affected my health but I will not let its effects bring me down&#8230;&#8230;&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: afreestyler</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-123613</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[afreestyler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:07:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-123613</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amusing story, Daryl.. Although I ‘shudder’ to think of reading the words ‘I was figuratively scared to death’ or any thing of that type. I was figuratively stunned’  (&lt; which here, is also telling me is spelt wrong) More amusement! I was figuratively amazed that WordPress are at times that old fashioned; that I no longer use their &#039;proof reader&#039; proof in the fact, I prefer to do it myself! As for the blue underscore……. :/
It&#039;s so old fashioned now, that a broader audience also means to bend the language somewhat.. for fear of losing your audience, one would think.. 
Australia has also come a long way to include and update even their dictionary&#039;s on words and use of to keep &#039;up to date&#039; on more common usages…

The Macquarie Dictionary Online is updated annually, making it the most up-to-date Australian dictionary and thesaurus available. Subscribe now for fast and easy access to over 300,000 words and definitions.

What is a regionalism?
It&#039;s a word, phrase or expression used by a particular community in particular parts of the country. For instance, the prepared meat called devon in New South Wales is called Belgium sausage in Tasmania, Empire sausage in Newcastle, fritz in South Australia, polony in Western Australia, Windsor sausage in Queensland and German sausage or Strasburg in Victoria.
Australian Word Map is a co-production of the Macquarie Library Pty Ltd and ABC Online. It is an interactive website that is recording Australian regionalisms into one big database. As yet, most of Australia&#039;s regionalisms haven&#039;t been documented, let alone included in Australian dictionaries. So ABC Online and Macquarie Dictionary have designed an interactive online project that will document this part of our oral history.

Definition of literally, From the Oxford dictionary, However….

adverb
in a literal manner or sense; exactly:
the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout
tiramisu, literally translated ‘pull-me-up’
informal used for emphasis while not being literally true:
I have received literally thousands of letters
In its standard use literally means ‘in a literal sense, as opposed to a non-literal or exaggerated sense’, as for example in
I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn’t expect him to take it literally
. In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in
they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground
. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects
(we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread.
Hope you and others will enjoy the interpretation! :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amusing story, Daryl.. Although I ‘shudder’ to think of reading the words ‘I was figuratively scared to death’ or any thing of that type. I was figuratively stunned’  (&lt; which here, is also telling me is spelt wrong) More amusement! I was figuratively amazed that WordPress are at times that old fashioned; that I no longer use their &#039;proof reader&#039; proof in the fact, I prefer to do it myself! As for the blue underscore……. :/<br />
It&#039;s so old fashioned now, that a broader audience also means to bend the language somewhat.. for fear of losing your audience, one would think..<br />
Australia has also come a long way to include and update even their dictionary&#039;s on words and use of to keep &#039;up to date&#039; on more common usages…</p>
<p>The Macquarie Dictionary Online is updated annually, making it the most up-to-date Australian dictionary and thesaurus available. Subscribe now for fast and easy access to over 300,000 words and definitions.</p>
<p>What is a regionalism?<br />
It&#039;s a word, phrase or expression used by a particular community in particular parts of the country. For instance, the prepared meat called devon in New South Wales is called Belgium sausage in Tasmania, Empire sausage in Newcastle, fritz in South Australia, polony in Western Australia, Windsor sausage in Queensland and German sausage or Strasburg in Victoria.<br />
Australian Word Map is a co-production of the Macquarie Library Pty Ltd and ABC Online. It is an interactive website that is recording Australian regionalisms into one big database. As yet, most of Australia&#039;s regionalisms haven&#039;t been documented, let alone included in Australian dictionaries. So ABC Online and Macquarie Dictionary have designed an interactive online project that will document this part of our oral history.</p>
<p>Definition of literally, From the Oxford dictionary, However….</p>
<p>adverb<br />
in a literal manner or sense; exactly:<br />
the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout<br />
tiramisu, literally translated ‘pull-me-up’<br />
informal used for emphasis while not being literally true:<br />
I have received literally thousands of letters<br />
In its standard use literally means ‘in a literal sense, as opposed to a non-literal or exaggerated sense’, as for example in<br />
I told him I never wanted to see him again, but I didn’t expect him to take it literally<br />
. In recent years an extended use of literally (and also literal) has become very common, where literally (or literal) is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, for added effect, as in<br />
they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground<br />
. This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects<br />
(we were literally killing ourselves laughing) and is not acceptable in formal contexts, though it is widespread.<br />
Hope you and others will enjoy the interpretation! <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: synapticcohesion</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-123479</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[synapticcohesion]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:36:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-123479</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Agreed. I was literally going into convulsions over this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed. I was literally going into convulsions over this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thinker007</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-123468</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[thinker007]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-123468</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But let&#039;s just agree to disagree. It feels as if we could be using our energy to argue about much more pressing issues.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But let&#8217;s just agree to disagree. It feels as if we could be using our energy to argue about much more pressing issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thinker007</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-123467</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[thinker007]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-123467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re going to get mad at me, but I would say that &quot;I literally murdered my friend yesterdqay because he touched my food&quot; is a hyperbole and its function is not to threaten (as in the previous case), but to provide humour. But I guess you have to take the context into consideration ( as always ). If it so happens that this guy is a comedian narrating this story to an audience or if he is simply retelling it to his friends, then it seems functional.

If, however, he said this alone in a dark room, he is most likely a lunatic.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re going to get mad at me, but I would say that &#8220;I literally murdered my friend yesterdqay because he touched my food&#8221; is a hyperbole and its function is not to threaten (as in the previous case), but to provide humour. But I guess you have to take the context into consideration ( as always ). If it so happens that this guy is a comedian narrating this story to an audience or if he is simply retelling it to his friends, then it seems functional.</p>
<p>If, however, he said this alone in a dark room, he is most likely a lunatic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: synapticcohesion</title>
		<link>http://dailypost.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/literally/comment-page-1/#comment-123462</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[synapticcohesion]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dailypost.wordpress.com/?p=12582#comment-123462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I said, there&#039;s a difference between hyperbole and demonstrating that you don&#039;t know what a word means. When you&#039;re threatening someone, exaggeration is sometimes useful, though the use of the word &quot;literally&quot; is superfluous nonetheless.

&quot;If you touch my dinner, I will literally tear you to pieces when I get back.&quot; 

Hyperbole.

&quot;I literally murdered my friend yesterday because he touched my food.&quot;

Not hyperbole. He either murdered his friend, or is a flaming idiot.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I said, there&#8217;s a difference between hyperbole and demonstrating that you don&#8217;t know what a word means. When you&#8217;re threatening someone, exaggeration is sometimes useful, though the use of the word &#8220;literally&#8221; is superfluous nonetheless.</p>
<p>&#8220;If you touch my dinner, I will literally tear you to pieces when I get back.&#8221; </p>
<p>Hyperbole.</p>
<p>&#8220;I literally murdered my friend yesterday because he touched my food.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not hyperbole. He either murdered his friend, or is a flaming idiot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
