# Ad copy or statements that make no sense **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 24, 2007, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493 "2007-04-24T18:57:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/161 "2007-05-02T14:58:44Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] I’m usually quite on the side of the ‘usage makes it correct’ crowd, just not this time. I think it’s because using ‘literally’ to mean ‘figuratively’ isn’t just a subtle shift of meaning, it’s a complete reversal. [/QUOTE] I could care less. ::shudder ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/162 "2007-05-02T15:02:01Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] I think it’s because using ‘literally’ to mean ‘figuratively’ isn’t just a subtle shift of meaning, it’s a complete reversal. [/QUOTE] But it’s not a reversal of meaning. It’s “literally” being used as a general intensifier. I parse the term as being used literally and the resulting statement as hyberbole. A) I’m so hungry, I could eat a horse. B) I’m so hungry, I could literally eat a horse. C) I’m so hungry, I could figuratively eat a horse. D) I’m so hungry, I could, in effect, eat a horse. Sentence A obviously is a figure of speech, hyperbole. There is no danger of anyone taking that literally. Sentence B uses “literally” to intensify the hyperbole. It does not equate exactly to sentence C. If “literally” meant “figuratively”, sentence C should have the same connotation as sentence B To me, it doesn’t. Sentence C loses its hyperbolic punch by announcing to the speaker “take not what I am about to say as literal truth.” It’s a much weaker expression (IMHO) than A or B, never mind the fact that nobody I know would actual utter such a construction. Sentence D has the same effect as sentence C but sounds a little more natural to my ears. At any rate, both sentences C and D carry a different force of meaning than A or B. Furthermore, the Usage Note on “literally” from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) supports me on the matter: > [@](#): > > For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of “in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.” In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example “The 300,000 Unionists … will be literally thrown to the wolves.” **The practice does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itself—if it did, the word would long since have come to mean “virtually” or “figuratively”—but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive** , as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended. Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/163 "2007-05-02T15:13:05Z")
[QUOTE=OneCentStamp] Are you one of the people who gets all huffy when those crazy kids\* say “bad” to mean something is good? :dubious: [/QUOTE] No, as I said, I’m usually on the side of (or at least sympathetic to) the ‘usage makes it correct’ argument. For some reason, I can’t make myself extend this to ‘literally’. I don’t really know why. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/164 "2007-05-02T15:16:37Z")
But with “They had literally no help from the government”, there’s no expression that you are expected to take literally that also has a figurative meaning. They really did have no help from the government. literally=literally. It’s intensifying something that has no figurative meaning. “They literally got screwed by the government.” Now there’s one that would make you wonder what was really meant. You would have to assume that they figuratively got screwed by the government. So here, literally=figuratively. I don’t think their example and your “eat a horse” ones are analogous. And it’s the leap from their example to yours that irks me. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/165 "2007-05-02T15:17:41Z")
[QUOTE=pulykamell] Here ya go: > [@Charles Dickens](#): > > ‘Lift him out,’ said Squeers, after he had literally feasted his eyes in silence upon the culprit. > > -Nicholas Nickleby I believe that qualifies as a very loose (i.e. figurative) usage of the word “literally.” At any rate, that’s the quote that is usually pulled out in these sorts of arguments. [/QUOTE] Hmmm, I suppose it depends whether ‘feasting your eyes’ is an action all by itself, not tightly related to eating, as in literally [feasting your eyes], rather than [literally feasting] your eyes. Do you have any other, perhaps less arguably ambiguous examples? - I realise I’m straining your indulgence, but _please, sir, I want some more._ ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/166 "2007-05-02T15:18:41Z")
MORE??? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/167 "2007-05-02T15:39:23Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Hmmm, I suppose it depends whether ‘feasting your eyes’ is an action all by itself, not tightly related to eating, as in literally [feasting your eyes], rather than [literally feasting] your eyes. Do you have any other, perhaps less arguably ambiguous examples? - I realise I’m straining your indulgence, but _please, sir, I want some more._ [/QUOTE] No. That’s all I’ve got, and that’s the only example I’m aware of from these debates. “Literally” is being used as an intensifier for a figure of speech. That’s how it is used today (at least in my analysis). It is used to intensify a figure of speech–in today’s examples, a hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/168 "2007-05-02T15:46:50Z")
[QUOTE=gigi] I don’t think their example and your “eat a horse” ones are analogous. And it’s the leap from their example to yours that irks me. [/QUOTE] I do think they’re completely analagous…and the leap is really from my example to theirs, not the other way around. I made the distinctions first and found some support by checking online sources. [QUOTE=gigi] But with “They had literally no help from the government”, there’s no expression that you are expected to take literally that also has a figurative meaning. They really did have no help from the government. literally=literally. It’s intensifying something that has no figurative meaning. [/quote] Correct. And I’m reading that [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) is showing an example of “literally” as a general intensifier that no one would object to, and explaining that the word is now used to encompass figurative situations as well, hence the “natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive.” They are clearly stating that the word “literally” has _not_ undergone a change in meaning. Read the bolded part. They are saying exactly that. They’re first example, which prompts the bolded statement, is about being “literally thrown to the wolves.” > [@](#): > > “They literally got screwed by the government.” Now there’s one that would make you wonder what was really meant. No sane speaker of English would have any “wonder what was really meant.” C’mon. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/169 "2007-05-02T16:21:31Z")
Yeah, but when you say “I could literally eat a horse”, there is a literal meaning of the words “eat a horse” that makes sense. People really can and do literally eat horses. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/170 "2007-05-02T17:04:15Z")
What I find meaningless; Those car ads on TV (where the car is being driven at \>100 MPH on a twisty road): “Professional driver on closed road-do not attempt at home”! So what good is buying a high-powered car if you can’t drive it at speeds far above the legal limit?? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/171 "2007-05-02T17:59:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Me and a zillion other English speakers apparently don’t have a problem knowing from context when “literally” is being used as a figurative intensifier and when it isn’t. When the action being described as literal could not possibly be taken by any sane or intelligent person as actually being literal, that’s a pretty good sign the word is being used as a figurative intensifier, and not in its literal sense. Usually, that’s the case, as with non-literal use of any word. But there are exceptions, and there needs to be some way to specify those exceptions. As an example, suppose I told you I saw a sunset which literally filled the entire sky. How would you interpret that? By the meaning you’re attaching to “literally”, you’d interpret that to mean that the sunset was pretty impressive, but that there was still a fair bit of sky which wasn’t lit up by it. Which means that we have a communication failure, because when I [posted that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=409186) a few months ago, I really did mean “literally”. Without any word which means “literally”, how was I supposed to phrase that? ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/172 "2007-05-02T20:42:01Z")
[QUOTE=pulykamell] Correct. And I’m reading that [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) is showing an example of “literally” as a general intensifier that no one would object to, and explaining that the word is now used to encompass figurative situations as well, hence the “natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive.” They are clearly stating that the word “literally” has _not_ undergone a change in meaning. Read the bolded part. They are saying exactly that. They’re first example, which prompts the bolded statement, is about being “literally thrown to the wolves.” [/QUOTE] Right, so I guess my objection is partly that it would be used as an intensifier at all, and partly that it jumped from being an intensifier of things where its use doesn’t sound silly to things where it does. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/173 "2007-05-02T21:05:40Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Yeah, but when you say “I could literally eat a horse”, there is a literal meaning of the words “eat a horse” that makes sense. People really can and do literally eat horses. [/QUOTE] Once again, usually context dictates whether the meaning is literal or not. You give this phrase to 100 native English speakers, and I doubt there will be one person in that hundred who would be confused by the meaning. Idon’t think anyone could “literally” eat an entire horse, which is what the phrase “I’m so hungry, I could eat **a** horse” means. If one were just expressing a desire to eat horse meat (and I do know people literally eat horses–I have), one would say “I’m so hungry, I could literally eat horse.” That phrase, to me, means “I’m so hungry, I would eat anything, even horse meat,” the implication being that the speaker finds horse meat disgusting, and his hunger would drive him to such a state that he would actually eat horse. I mean, seriously, do you have problems with metaphors? Do you insist that people only use similes, where “like” or “as” flag a figurative usage? If you don’t, (and I assume you don’t), then you have the language faculties to distinguish literal and figurative usage. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/174 "2007-05-02T21:09:59Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] Usually, that’s the case, as with non-literal use of any word. But there are exceptions, and there needs to be some way to specify those exceptions. As an example, suppose I told you I saw a sunset which literally filled the entire sky. How would you interpret that? By the meaning you’re attaching to “literally”, you’d interpret that to mean that the sunset was pretty impressive, but that there was still a fair bit of sky which wasn’t lit up by it. Which means that we have a communication failure, because when I [posted that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=409186) a few months ago, I really did mean “literally”. Without any word which means “literally”, how was I supposed to phrase that? [/QUOTE] Reading your post, it was clear that you meant literally as an intensifier of a real event, even if you omitted the parenthetical. > [@](#): > > Literally (…parenthetical removed..) the entire sky was filled with the sunset, and even the eastern part of it was more amazing than any other sunset I’d ever see Seems clear to me you’re discussing a literal usage of the term, since you mention the eastern part of the sunset. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/175 "2007-05-02T21:11:45Z")
[QUOTE=gigi] Right, so I guess my objection is partly that it would be used as an intensifier at all, and partly that it jumped from being an intensifier of things where its use doesn’t sound silly to things where it does. [/QUOTE] Well, you can take it up with the mid-19th century, which is where the usage seems to have started, or at least gained popularity. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2007, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/176 "2007-05-02T21:25:22Z")
No, it’s only started within the past ten years, just in time to literally bother the crap out of me. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2007, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/177 "2007-05-05T00:02:19Z")
[QUOTE=pulykamell] I’ll just sit here and use “literally” in a figurative manner like most English speakers do. [/QUOTE] Most? I’d argue that. I think “most” English speakers either know the difference between literally and figuratively and use them correctly, or don’t use the word at all. You appear to know the difference, and you use the word incorrectly _on purpose._ Why? You want to fit in with the dumb crowd? You don’t want to stand out by being “the smart guy”? I’ll never understand this mindset. [QUOTE=pulykamell] Idon’t think anyone could “literally” eat an entire horse, [/QUOTE] I literally eat an entire cow (well, the meat, anyway) every year, with the help of my family. I have a good freezer. Give me some more time and I’m sure I could do it by myself. Moving on to eating an entire horse is no stretch at all. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2007, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/178 "2007-05-05T05:04:44Z")
[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat] Most? I’d argue that. I think “most” English speakers either know the difference between literally and figuratively and use them correctly, or don’t use the word at all. [/quote] I disagree. Do you actually listen to people who talk around you? Folks–at least the folks I know–use “literally” as an intensive all the time. > [@](#): > > You appear to know the difference, and you use the word incorrectly _on purpose._ Why? You want to fit in with the dumb crowd? You don’t want to stand out by being “the smart guy”? I’ll never understand this mindset. WTF? I use the word as an intensifier of a figure of speech. I’ve already argued that I’m not using the word incorrectly, no matter what you or some pedants may think. I’m using it to emphasize a figure of speech, as folks since the freaking mid-19th century have been using it. You think Fitzgerald is trying to fit into the dumb crowd by using this perfect good idiom? You think Twain is? Yeah, maybe they don’t want to stand out by being “the smart guy.” Thanks for casting aspersions, buddy. :rolleyes: Let me repeat again: I do not believe this is an incorrect usage of the word “literally.” I believe some people apparently have difficulty understanding that language is not math, and there’s these things called “idioms” and “figures of speech” that are contrary to a literal interpretation of a thought. > [@](#): > > I literally eat an entire cow (well, the meat, anyway) every year, with the help of my family. I have a good freezer. Give me some more time and I’m sure I could do it by myself. Moving on to eating an entire horse is no stretch at all. And this proves what? The phrase “I’m so hungry, I could eat a horse” implies doing so in one sitting, all by yourself. Otherwise, it wouldn’t really be much of a statement, now would it? ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2007, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/179 "2007-05-05T05:10:49Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] I’m usually quite on the side of the ‘usage makes it correct’ crowd, just not this time. I think it’s because using ‘literally’ to mean ‘figuratively’ isn’t just a subtle shift of meaning, it’s a complete reversal. [/QUOTE] I’m with you on this. Anytime I hear someone use ‘literally’ incorrectly I just assume they don’t actually know what it means. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2007, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493/180 "2007-05-05T05:13:48Z")
And, just for fun, [here’s a Slate article on “Literally”.](http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/) And [here’s a rather thoughtful explanation from one of the guys on the American Heritage Dictionary’s usage panel](http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/CLliterally.pdf) about the status of the word “literally.” (WARNING:PDF File). Intelligent people can disagree about whether this is “improper” usage or not, without feeling like we’re “dumbing down” or some bull hockey like that. Seriously, I am insulted by that insinuation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ad-copy-or-statements-that-make-no-sense/401493.md?page=10)