Literally has been used in this manner for over a hundred years. It's not new or a big deal. People that care about pedantic things like this are literally wasting their lives and that's using it correctly.

It's still annoying.

I respectfully disagree. I think it works when it's used in a humorous way, while it can be a bit jarring when people use it in a serious discussion. I think there's something funny about someone clarifying that their statement is correct when it is not. It's like saying 'no joke I just hiroshima'd that toilet' obviously that is a joke and part of the appeal comes from the serious way a ridiculous thing is being said.

I literally can't believe there is a problem here.

If someone intentionally uses it incorrectly to be funny that's fine. I'm talking about when people use it incorrectly because they literally don't understand what it means.

In this case "literally's" meaning literally hasn't change. I think people miss the point in that sentence. You have to understand that "every pair of shoes" is a hyperbole, and it only works as a hyperbole, and retains its irony if "literally" retains its meaning.

A hyperbole is "an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally." Hyperbole | Define Hyperbole at Dictionary.com Otherwise if you started the sentence with "figuratively" you literally loose the irony of the hyperbole, and it wouldn't make much sense imo. Even though not all the shoes were not ruined, the ones that were could not be “figuratively” ruined, if they were actually ruined. http://www.energyscienceforum.com/im...ilies/prof.gif

I hate this, but the reality of linguistics is that the written word represents language, not vice versa, and although our culture places prestige on the written word, for it to serve its function, it must be updated with the meanings held by our language.

Thus language wins, they're right to do it. :(

This.

Also how is "every pair of shoes" a hyperbole? If a person owns 3 pairs of shoes and said "I literally lost 3 pairs of shoes when my apartment flooded", is that a hyperbole"? It sounds stupid to say but it is not over-exaggerated.

Even if the sentence is a bad example the point of the topic shouldn't be overlooked.

Because if every single pair of shoes were ruined you could literally tell by the fact he was barefooted when he told the story.

If it is quantized and you suspect that he is telling the truth in this case that 3 pairs of shoes were ruined then it is not a hyperbole, because you can take what he said literally. Now if he said he lost 3 million pairs of shoes then yes, it is a hyperbole, because hopefully you should know your friend does not own three million pairs of shoes. The point is you are suppose to read between the lines, and figure things out for yourself and not get bent out of share over little things, like he said "all" and I know for a fact it wasn't "all." How dare he!

Some person misused the word "irony" in a post. Who, what, where, when and how?