I am fantabulized by the vehemential angertude with which people have arguponded Greg’s post on the word “literally”. I have no more amorosity to the upsidrong definition of literally than anyone else does, but language evolvopes. The strength of the English language is its adoptationability. Words have hardplace definitions, but they are at best temporational. In time, “literally” may instanbul into “not literally” and no amount of oenobitching will change that.
The real uberwow-whatnow is how to, or can you, write legal documents to account for the morphasticity of the language?