Grammer conversations are the very pineapple of useless discourse, and I don't see why we don't nip them in the butt. Weather you say "literally" or "figuratively", both are equally understandable for all intensive purposes. So as far as I'm concerned these arguments serve no porpoise and we'd be better off if they faded into Bolivian.

They are using the phrase "literally kill me" as a hyperbole. It is a form of exaggeration. They are not in fact being killed, they are just annoyed. It is a rhetorical device used for emphasis.

The word "literally" has been commonly used for hyperbole in English for hundreds of years. There is nothing grammatically wrong here.

The hyperbolic use of "literally" to mean "figuratively" goes back hundreds of years.

> : in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

They justify this in a few places, including

> The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others.

edit: HN was loading really weird for me, I didn't see the sibling comment make this point already!

I certainly do. More so, I was referencing the fact that the definition of the word "literally" now also includes "figuratively" in several English dictionaries as an example of a similar language development.

> Since we're discussing grammer

Kelsey?