I was referring to the ones wolfpup specifically quoted.
In wolfpup’s defense, you did at one point say that
As near as I can tell, you’re the only poster who said this, and you said it not to explicitly argue with the dictionaries, but to say that even if wolfpup were understanding them correctly, they were wrong. I think you’re the only person (not “several posters” he believes made any such claim.
I’m unconvinced that the dictionaries are getting it wrong, but more importantly, I’m unconcerned. We can easily see how the word is used; we don’t need dictionaries to tell us that when we can find countless examples of the word’s use as an intensifier.
I, uh, I have written better paragraphs in my life. My apologies for the jumbled nature of this one.
I indeed said “in these sentences.” That’s because those words were not substitutable for “literally” in those sentences. In the modern intensifier sense, “almost” or “virtually” are not and can not be how “literally” is used in sentences like “the plan is literally insane.” The dictionaries quoted do not make that distinction. Therefore, someone using them to back up an assertion is wrong.
I have no problem with clarifying. Most everything that gets posted here is heat-of-the-moment first draft, not formal papers that have been rewritten and rethought and sent out for review. Everybody says stuff that is overstated and broader than careful analysis might reveal. That’s what colloquial language is like. In spoken arguments we adjust on the fly. Here, with hours between posts and multiple posters intervening, statements lay dead and fester while resentment builds up. It’s nowhere near a good environment for argument even though that’s what it is so often used for. And probably why so many people go off the rails.
Thank you. I’ll also add that I was not exaggerating in attributing this view to “several posters”. Here are two more:
While it’s just @Richard_Pearse who explicitly states that dictionaries are (slightly) wrong, both he and @Princhester reject the idea that it’s being used in the sense of “virtually”, yet both Merriam-Webster and the OED use that exact word in describing the meaning of “literally” when used as an intensifier.
@Exapno_Mapcase joins the fun by declaring the same thing, equally in direct opposition to what dictionaries actually describe:
I agree, and I thank you for that observation. I would certainly have been more careful with my wording of that whole “he lost his shit” fiasco if I’d known my comment was going to be (disingenuously) microanalyzed for the purpose of mockery. The statement that was being subjected to such microscopic analysis was indeed just off-the-cuff pure hyperbolic snark.
I believe I’ve been consistent in my views in this thread, if perhaps not always clear. And I’d like to think I’ve been reasonably logical, and responsive to challenges. If I don’t always respond to everything promptly it’s just because of the sheer volume of things to respond to, or just forgetfulness.
It’s surprising that I’m under so much attack for what is really a relatively nuanced position on this issue, namely that while the use of “literally” as an intensifier has a legacy going back hundreds of years, such usage in standard English has usually been to emphasize the closeness of a metaphor to an actual reality. I certainly can’t dispute that it’s frequently used nowadays to intensify almost any expression, but I hold the view that this is non-standard and poor style, except perhaps in the most informal contexts.
Incidentally, I will freely acknowledge that my views on the intensifier use of “literally” have evolved over the years. I was once one of the peevers who objected to any use of “literally” that was not in the plain sense of “not figuratively”. Many people, presumably fairly literate people, still hold that view – or at least, that misuse seems to have weakened the meaning of the word, like this post from a commenter on Language Log:
If you use “literally” to mean actually and someone misunderstands it as simply a term of emphasis, it is hard to clarify without sounding neurotic.
To wit, a conversation I had recently:
Me: My husband’s family is very large. He has literally over a hundred cousins and doesn’t even know all their names.
Her: Mine, too!
Me: No, really, there’s more than a hundred of them!
Her: [laughing] Oh, yeah, too many to count!
Me: [getting exasperated] No, I’m not kidding, his dad was one of 11 kids and his mom was one of 16 so there’s literally more than a hundred cousins!
Her: Oh, yeah, that’s a lot. I mean, we have, like, 20.Drives me nuts.
It’s a subtle difference, but I don’t think I’d ever use “virtually” in place of “literally”. I do think the dictionary definition of its figurative use is poorly described. The problem with it meaning “virtually” is that “virtually”, in this context, is not an intensifier, it’s the opposite. It’s 1000 times better than many people’s insistence that literally is used to mean “figuratively” though.
I contend that “literally” means the same in its literal and figurative usage, but when used figuratively it is used as part of a metaphor.
Neither would I, but that wasn’t the point. Let’s look at it more closely.
James Joyce wrote:
Lily, the caretaker’s daughter, was literally run off her feet. Hardly had she brought one gentleman into the little pantry … than the wheezy hall-door bell clanged again and she had to scamper along the bare hallway to let in another guest.
Substitute “virtually” (or “figuratively”) in there, and instead of vivid imagery you get something that might belong in the Bulwer-Lytton contest of bad writing (where, in fact, much of the humour in intentionally bad writing lies in painstakingly clarifying – at great length – that a metaphor is meant only as an imperfect analogy).
The dictionaries are not trying to provide an exact synonym. They (both Webster and OED) list a number of words (including “virtually”) simply to give a sense of what the intensifier use of “literally” is supposed to mean – its scope and its limitations.
Right. I don’t think we disagree then. The figurative sense of “literally” doesn’t exactly mean “virtually”, it is slightly off. I think it would be far better described as “also used figuratively as an intensifier.”