But can it cause confusion that couldn't be cleared up by just saying "vomiting" instead?Archgeek wrote:↶
"Nauseous"'s common meaning can cause confusion when it collides with the medical definition, which approaches "actively vomiting or dry-heaving".
If doctors need to act that quickly, they damn well better be aware that their patients don't know most technical clinical terminology and act accordingly.This misalignment of terms can lead to inappropriate treatment, or at least waste time spent asking clarifying questions about the condition of someone whose need of assistance comes down to the order of seconds.
Do you have citations that it was ever used exclusively in this way?"Literally" is a particularly annoying one, considering the word had been used as a flag to indicate when hyperbole, metaphor, and co. were explicitly not being employed.
The hyperbolic intensifier sense of "literally" is at least 310 years old. (In 1708 Alexander Pope wrote, "Euery day with me is literally another yesterday.") Furthermore, I've never seen a good explanation for why this sense of "literally" is any more intrinsically confusing than the intensifier sense of "really" when someone says, for example, "It's really freezing in here!" about a room that is not, in fact, at or below 0C.
I am literally 100% certain that this would not, in fact, be the case.If someone promulgated a sarcastic or ironically reversed usage of a term commonly used in health and safety, they'd be rightly pilloried for it, and possibly arrested for endangering others if it somehow caught on.
Sure except that the people whining about hyperbolic uses of "literally" tend to overlap pretty heavily with the people who complain about Internet-inspired changes in textual expression.Also quite unfortunately, we're not so great at gauging emotional responses in a textual medium, and so must rely on things like precision of language and emoticons.