Yes and I'm sure Webster will also say[1] that literally is a synonym for figuratively, because of how people also like to destroy the meaning of that word, and descriptivists will forcefully (and ironically) prescribe indifference to that.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

▲

skylurk 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

This article claims the idiom predates Merriam-Webster.

https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2020/12/one-of-the-only.html

▲

pixelpoet 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'm likewise aware that using literally to mean figuratively isn't particularly new, but the phrase's existence or age isn't the issue.

▲

skylurk 4 days ago | parent [-]

I respect your commitment to influence the evolution of the language :)

	▲	pixelpoet 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Heh, I just write too much too readily about unimportant opinions, and a lot of people read sentences longer than a few words as incontrovertible proof of being triggered :D Also it's difficult not to call out the hypocrisy of descriptivists simultaneously saying that basically anything goes, but my preferred use of language in particular is wrong and I need to listen to what they prescribe :P

▲

fckgw 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Words change. Meanings change. This has always happened an always will. If enough people are ironically using literally, even if unknowingly, then yeah, the meaning will change and we need things like dictionaries to describe this new meaning.

	▲	skylurk 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're not wrong, but IIRC "only" has meant "one-like" since old english.