Literally

There seems to be some confusion circulating the social media as to the nature of the word 'literally'. Language purists insists that the word be used for one purpose only: to indicate something that is real, on point, without exaggeration.

These language purists don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

The word 'literally' in the sense of 'figuratively' has been in use for centuries, and a quick search in dictionaries such as the Oxford one or the Miriam-Webster one confirms it. Its usage in this context is well established, and has been used by the likes of Dickens and Fitzgerald.

And yet, this word is one of my pet peeves. Why?

Because I'm one of the other language purists. The ones that insist words be used appropriately, with regard to their individual etymology, gradation, power, balance, connotation...

In its meaning as a synonym for 'figuratively', the word 'literally' exudes intensity. In such a context, the word stands for something that 'is not literal but it's so strong it might as well have been'.

He was desperately in love with her for five years; but she had never acknowledged his existence before. Today, she touched his hand and smiled at him. He literally beamed.

What does this context infer? He didn't actually beam. He neither lit up like a light bulb nor did he transmit a radio signal. But it felt like he was: and powerfully so. The use of the word 'literally' stands in this context for great intensity and raw emotion.

We should not discuss whether the word 'literally' can or cannot be used in the sense of something that isn't actually real. It can, and that dispute has been shut down two and a half centuries ago.

What we should discuss is how to stop its usage for mundane shit that does not justify or deserve its power: often immediately after "... like,".