<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	  <title>Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with literally</title>
      <link>http://ask.metafilter.com/tags/literally</link>
      <description>Questions tagged with 'literally' at Ask MetaFilter.</description>
	  <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:44:19 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:44:19 -0800</lastBuildDate>

      <language>en-us</language>
	  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	  <ttl>60</ttl>	  
	<item>
	<title>&quot;Literally&quot; is its own antonym! How can this be?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/35249/Literally%2Dis%2Dits%2Down%2Dantonym%2DHow%2Dcan%2Dthis%2Dbe</link>	
	<description>Thanks to a derail in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50435#1259953&quot;&gt;this thread&lt;/a&gt;, I have learned that Merriam-Webster now believes that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=literally&quot;&gt;&quot;literally&quot; also means &quot;virtually.&quot;&lt;/a&gt; This has shaken me to the core, and seems to be evidence of the English language being irrevocably broken. I beg you to ease my soul and prove this isn&apos;t true by giving me evidence of other English words that, over time, have come to mean their own antonyms.</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2006:site.35249</guid>
	<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:44:19 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>antonym</category>
	<category>english</category>
	<category>language</category>
	<category>literally</category>
	<category>virtually</category>
	<dc:creator>Faint of Butt</dc:creator>
	</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>

