I can tell you from experience, they don't.

The fact is, while the grammar police

act like these rules were laid down by God herself,

they can change and morph over time,

just like language does.

How dare you! The rules are the rules.

She ain't listenin'.

Don't say "ain't," dear.

It's low-class.

Funny you say that.

Up until the 1800s, "ain't" was a proper contraction

of "am not," used by the upper class.

Are you attending Lady Margaret's soiree?

I won't, I shan't, I ain't.

It wasn't until the lower classes began to use it

that the word fell out of fashion

and was deemed bad English.

I ain't going either. What luck.

Now we can hang out together.

How vulgar!

I'll never use that word again.

(both) Shun, shun, shun!

And now, when someone says "ain't,"

grammar nuts literally go insane.

(laughs) Aha, I got you now.

You said "literally" when you meant "figuratively."

That's actually the opposite of what you meant.

It's wrong and it's always been wrong.

So be gone.

Whoa!

Wrong again, Ms. Dazzle.

People have been using "literally"

as a hyperbolic intensifier for literally hundreds of years.

Hogwash.

Charles Dickens used it.

So did Charlotte Bronte.

Not to mention Mark Twain, James Joyce,

F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Vladimir Nabokov.

(screaming)

But those are the English language's greatest writers.

Didn't they know about the rule?

The fact is, there was no documented rule

against using "literally" this way until 1909,

when author Ambrose Bierce wrote a grammar book

titled "Write It Right."

♪ To those who use "literally" when you mean "figuratively" ♪

♪ It is bad enough to exaggerate ♪

♪ But to affirm the truth of the exaggeration is intolerable♪