I'm not a grammarian (like, say, this smartypants). My sentences are often incomplete and I'm never totally sure about all the rules. I'm also not one to correct people when they break one of the rules I am familiar with; I think that's so rude and embarrassing. Yet there are certain things that really drive me nuts.

Lately I've been obsessing over the rampant misuse of the word "literally". I know this is nothing new but I just can't believe how many people do it. It's everywhere. I've found myself doing it in spite of the fact that it's such a huge pet peeve. I've noticed that people are often using it as an intensifer. To me that's completely perplexing. "She literally drove 100mph". As opposed to what? I don't understand why you'd say that.

The only possible way to use the word correctly is in contrast with "figuratively". You didn't literally turn your back on your family (unless you turned on your heel and refused to face them). You figuratively turned your back. But if, say, you hike to the top of Mt Everest you could say "I'm literally on top of the world."

I've pointed it out so many times to Drew that he suggested, quite seriously, that perhaps the meaning of the word needs to change. I'm not completely against that; I agree that usage determines meaning rather than the other way around. But how can you change the meaning of such a word? LITERALLY.

Just so you won't think that I'm being nothing but snotty and nitpicky, check out this correction that ran (not literally) in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks back:

"A July 30 Current article on urban revitalization said the Central City East Assn. had 'literally swept and hosed' homeless people from encampments on skid row when it cleaned the streets recently. Homeless people had been informed a day in advance that the street would be washed, and the organization waited until everyone was out of the way before beginning the cleanup."

Needless to say, the Central City East Association was not amused. The head of that organization said, in response to the original Times article, "The images that were conjured up were of the darkest days of the Civil Rights movement... I was absolutely mortified."

I think that what bothers me most about this is that there seems to be some deeper meaning to the misuse and abuse of the term. Somebody smarter than me has probably written a paper on it. But I've started to wonder if people don't perhaps feel the need to distinguish what they're saying (which they believe to be totally and completely true and accurate) from the air of "truthiness" all around them. It's as though people are saying, 'Hey, I know you can't believe what most people say, but what I'm telling you right now is the goddamn literal truth.'

That may sound absurd, but it's really starting to bother me. We shouldn't have to come up with a new way of reassuring everyone that we're telling the truth. And even if we do need that, let's get a whole new word. Let's leave "literally" alone. The more we misuse it the more confused its definition becomes and we end up with false (yet awfully fucking dramatic) images of homeless people being assaulted by high-power water hoses.