Legislation has today been passed making it illegal for
anyone other than registered licence-holders to employ the word “literally”.
Licences will be granted only after a 6-month probationary period has
passed, in which a voice-tracking system - implanted in the cheek – has confirmed
that use of the word has been restricted to its traditional and actually meaningful
meaning. A rigorously enforced points
system - similar to that which applies to motorists – will be used to track the fitness of
licence-holders to retain said licence.
However, there are those who feel this new legislation goes
against the best traditions of the English language. Figurative/literally-user,
Sarah Waters said “To be told that I’m using a word wrongly is absurd. The English language has no master. It is
forever growing and constantly evolving. Just look at Shakespeare. Everyone says
how good he was at English and he made up literally ten thousand new words.
Literally!”
But Professor Dean, Head of Etymology, Moxbridge
University, said “Such an argument is wrong
because - rather than creating something new - a highly particular word for
which there are no synonyms, has become synonymous with a word which means its
opposite, and for which there are many synonyms.”
“If they had coined,
say, “unliterally” the supposed parallel with Shakespeare would be tenable. Instead,
it is - allegorically - closer to one of those creeping rainforest plants gradually
crawling over some highly valuable, endangered species of plant, and then slowly suffocating it and absorbing its nutrients. Furthermore, have none of you read 1984? The
only difference is that in this case The Party doesn’t need to introduce
Newspeak because we’re doing it ourselves. Newspeak? No? Nevermind.”
Non-idiot, Jane Leaves said “I do sometimes find the
newfangled use of it a bit difficult to keep up with. For example, when someone is telling a lurid anecdote, and they sum up with, “It was so crazy, I literally shit myself!”
what is one to assume? Yes one can seek clarification, but wouldn’t it save at least a few social man-hours if they were to substitute the “literally” for,
say, “figuratively”, “non-literally”, or even leave it out altogether?”
The debate looks set to continue.
