From an article by McWhorter: "The Grumpy Grammarian: Surely, Actually the Scolds Have Lost Their Minds"
Complaints about literally long predate Biden, of course. An early rendition came from the satirist and journalist Ambrose Bierce, who declared in 1909 that “to affirm the truth of the exaggeration is intolerable.” But “wrong” uses of literally go back to Dryden, Austen, and Thackeray.
“Misuse” that has been going on that long would seem to suggest that literally’s meaning has, well, changed.
Since misuse is postmodified by "that has been going on that long", would it be okay to use an indefinite article before it?
A “misuse” that has been going on that long would seem to suggest that literally’s meaning has, well, changed.
Why did the author of the article use no article before "misuse"?