I could care less. ::shudder
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 supports me on the matter:
Emphasis added.
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.
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.
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.
MORE???
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.
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.
Correct. And I’m reading that 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.”
No sane speaker of English would have any “wonder what was really meant.” C’mon.
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.
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?? 
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 a few months ago, I really did mean “literally”. Without any word which means “literally”, how was I supposed to phrase that?
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.
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.
Reading your post, it was clear that you meant literally as an intensifier of a real event, even if you omitted the parenthetical.
Seems clear to me you’re discussing a literal usage of the term, since you mention the eastern part of the sunset.
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.
No, it’s only started within the past ten years, just in time to literally bother the crap out of me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I’m with you on this. Anytime I hear someone use ‘literally’ incorrectly I just assume they don’t actually know what it means.
And, just for fun, here’s a Slate article on “Literally”.
And here’s a rather thoughtful explanation from one of the guys on the American Heritage Dictionary’s usage panel 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.