In defence of using "literally" when you mean "figuratively"

There seems to be a renewed wave of attack on the use of "literally" in situations where "figuratively" is more appropriate. A couple of my friends shared two articles on Google reader, including an xkcd which literally rips apart such usage (actually that should be "figuratively rips apart..." but I shall shortly prove why using literally is also not so bad).

Think of your average metaphor - "Maccha Royal Challengers got screwed like a *&^% da"
Think of how you say it if you were even more excited about this - "Maccha Royal Challengers really got screwed like a *&^% da."

In the first sentence we all know that this probably means a sub par cricketing performance by the Bangalore team (or maybe that they ended up with Rahul Dravid yet again at the auction). In the second sentence the presence of really is not to indicate that the description is not a metaphor but a report of physical occurrence but merely to add emphasis to a metaphor.

Please note how the import of the statement does not change when you say "Maccha Royal Challengers got reaaaallly screwed like a *^&%$. Like actually. Proper *&#ked"

Now, though "literally" can be used to indicate actual physical occurrence. In context it can mean mere emphasis to a figure of speech/phrase.

Engrish

My first submission to Engrish Funny while not as good as the ultimate strong engrish they have on display still evokes a chuckle from some.
Fancy Booties it says. I like fancy booties.

Ye Olde Cunnada

On several occasions I have wondered what the Kannada equivalent of engrish is.

I came up with the following shortlist-

Kannad - As the North Indians call it and given their propensity to ignore the vowel (especially if its an 'uh' sound) at the end when they pronounce South Indian words

Kannadam - As I recently heard some tams and mals call it.

Diga/Kannadiga - Law Schoolites

I vote for and select Kannad.

However, most of the Kannad i see is because of wrong usage/ bad spelling by Kannadigas themselves.

The photo over here is an interesting one. This stone demarcating the boundary between Mysore and Malabar erected in 1862, is in a place so remote that the nearest tar road is a good 35 Kms away (Electricity - 45 Kms, though there is
a high tension wire, about 20 kms away, mobile signal - 5 kms). It is interesting because someone in 1862 saw it fit to go from Mysore all the way here, despite restraints of mid 19th century transport, lugging a huge slab of stone to plant it in a place where no human would see it for years to come.

The english writing on the stone staidly states - BOUNDARY BETWEEN MYSORE AND MALABAR. The etching in Kannada is what is interesting - Mysoorushimegoo Malabarjillakkoo Sarapoodra. Gets the meaning across but weird all the same.

ಆದರೆ ಇದು ತಪ್ಪು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ೧೮೬೨ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸರಹದ್ದು ಎಂದು ಅರ್ಥ ಬರುವ ಹಾಗೆ "ಸರಪೂದ್ರ" ಎನ್ನುವ ಪದದ ಬಳಕೆ ಇದ್ದಿರಬಹುದೆಂದು ನನ್ನ ಊಹೆ.

ಅಂತೆಯೇ ಮೈಸೂರುಶಿಮೆ ಎಂದು ಬರೆದಿರುವುದೂ ಅಂದಿನ ಸಮಕಾಲೀನ ಚಾಲ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಿರಬಹುದು.

೮ ಕೂಡ ಅಷ್ಟೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡುಬರುವ ಚಿಹ್ನೆ square root ಚಿಹ್ನೆಯಂತಿದೆ. ಕಲ್ಲಿನ ಕೆಳಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಲಬದಿಗೆ ಗಮನಿಸಿದರೆ ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.