The most annoying usage of literally (even though it sounds correct to me) is by a colleague who says things like “I’m LITERALLY very angry!”. Just drives me nutty.
That would figuratively drive me crazy.
Irregardless…
Does it use TNT or dynamite?
They’ve created a paradox.
True, but just to nitpick further, not all insects are bugs.
Did you discover that by literally nitpicking, and checking the results under the microscope?
There’s a certain about of irony here: you call people who use the word in this manner “ignorant,” yet you’re ignorant of the effect of the word. It’s an intensifier, very similar to “really” both in its original meaning and in its nonliteral usage. It doesn’t mean the opposite of “literally” when it’s used to intensify a figurative expression.
In general, this peeve is like a reverse shibboleth. When someone complains about the nonliteral use of “literally,” it’s a sure sign that they don’t belong to the elite club of people who understand how language works.
I could use the word literally in its real meaning. But when people are running around claiming the word also has another meaning that’s the opposite of its real meaning, its use can lead to confusion.
Again: its use as an intensifier isn’t an opposite meaning. Watch:
“There are twenty kids in my room, and literally every single one of them knows how to do the Dap.” Here, “literally” signifies that there is no exaggeration. Without that word, you might not know that.
“There are twenty two kids in my room, and on the day after end of grade tests, they are literally turning into Tasmanian devils from the old Loony Toons cartoons.” Here, you know that’s not technically true; you don’t need “literally” to tell you that. Its meaning is not the opposite of the literal meaning. Instead, it says, “you know that metaphor I’m giving you? Dude, seriously, it’s like that!” It’s an intensifier of the metaphor, not a signifier that it’s a metaphor.
As for leading to confusion, no it doesn’t. Nobody is ever confused by a use of literally, although some people like to pretend they are in order to count coup on other English speakers.
What evidence do you have to support your assertion that the metaphorical use of literally is based on ignorance of its prior meaning?
As the old joke goes,
“A double negative is a positive, but a double positive is never a negative”.
“Yeah, right.”
So, would language would be richer without irony and sarcasm?
Do you think the modern use of bad, sick, wicked, *bitchin’ * diminishes the richness of our language?
You’re wrong. The real meaning of this word is a genuine and distinct meaning. For that matter, the real meaning of really is a genuine and distinct meaning. But there are people who just throw extra words into their speech without concern for their meanings in order to “intensify” it.
Their speech is still understandable because these extra words have been stripped of their meaning. What they’re saying is something like “it’s hot outside.” They may express it as “it’s really hot outside” or “it’s literally hot outside” or “it’s fucking hot outside” or “it’s zymurgically hot outside” but they’re not adding anything to the message. They’re just throwing a random adverb into the middle without being aware of what it means.
Meanwhile, a person who actually knows the meanings of these words is trying to puzzle out the speaker’s intent: “Are you saying it’s hot enough outside to ferment something?”
True. I like to call those people “non-robots”.
Do you have similar objections to the use of the intensifier incredibly? Should incredibly large be used only when it is literally impossible for a human being to believe the size?
(And, incidentally, were you confused by my use of the word literally there? Did you think that it might be just an intensifier for impossible, or was it quite clear from context what I meant?)
If you think the intensifier incredibly is ok, but the intensifier literally is not, can you explain why, other than subjective stylistic preference?
Two points. First, to represent oneself as the sole purveyor of “reality” in a subjective discussion about language might strike some as being a touch arrogant. Second, the comparison with biological evolution is extremely flawed.
Language evolves (or sometimes devolves) through many different mechanisms, including the beneficent influences of great writers and the detrimental effects of simple ignorance. The former has helped make English arguably the most expressive language in the world, while the latter has helped make it among the most maddeningly inconsistent and confusing. No one in his right mind would claim that this linguistic rats’ nest is “the epitome of precision and elegance”. The rules of usage exist to provide some modicum of clarity so we have some hope of understanding each other, not to try to keep language static.
The difference from evolution is that in biological evolution, beneficial traits are favored and tend to dominate, while detrimental ones die out. The ultimate arbiter of its direction is effectiveness. There is no such guiding hand in language, where at least some of the “evolutionary” forces are actively detrimental – where poor and blatantly incorrect usage due to ignorance can not only become dominant, but eventually must be accepted as “correct” despite being a detriment to clarity and comprehension – like the alternate definition of “literally” to mean “not literally at all” – or maybe not – the poor reader or listener has to try to figure it out.
I get frustrated as hell whenever somebody says that they’re fine with stupid usage because they understand perfectly well what it means. Well, at least they think they do. I literally could care less. Do you understand what I meant? (Good, because I don’t!) The vagaries of the English language are on full display whenever we try to apply any kind of systematic methodology to it, like teaching it to kids or non-English speakers, or in computational linguistics. And, all too often, when we simply try to understand what some moron is trying to say.
I like this approach. I’m going to try it out.
Because “incredibly” is hyperbole and, as such, an effective intensifier. Whereas “literally”, when used in direct opposition to its true meaning, is just stupid.
Just to clarify, I did not claim that the process of language evolution resembles biological evolution. I said only that these two fields of knowledge share something in common inasmuch as
[ my bold ]
Q.E.D.
I understand that. But since you made the comparison, I thought it was worth pointing out that biological evolution tends to favor beneficial traits, while some of the factors driving language evolution often introduce and entrench detrimental traits, very much the opposite of how evolution works.
Meaningless… like:
Left ---- To depart… or remain—I left the room, and my wife was left.
Dust – to apply OR to remove dust. Dust the table, , but not before we dust for fingerprints.
Seed – To add seeds… Or to remove seed. Seed these peppers, while I go seed the back yard.
Fast to move quickly… or not move at all. When I asked you to get my color fast shirt, you sure moved fast.
Off — to put in state where is will not operate, or to operate. I turned my alarm off, so it would not go off, and wake me Saturday morning.
Screen – to show, or hide from view. I had to screen my daughter from the TV where they were about to screen the new Tom Cruse film.
But … yeah, I hate the word being used that way, and will never accept it as correct usage.