# I'm figuratively nauseated by your literal ignorance **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 16, 2019, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307 "2019-09-16T13:11:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/81 "2019-09-17T21:22:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, a real-world example where “literally” is ambiguous (I think I encountered this one on this very board): > > “He owns literally a thousand CDs”. > > This might mean that he owns, say, 80 of them, and the speaker is just using “literally” for emphasis. Or it might mean that he’s a DJ, and really does own more than 999 CDs. Nor does it help to instead say “He owns a thousand CDs, for reals” or “he actually owns a thousand CDs”, because those have the same use as an intensifier that “literally” does. And you handle this situation the same way you handle all the other situations where the English language can be ambiguous. “He owns literally a thousand CDs.” “Do you mean an actual thousand, or just a lot?” “No, I just meant he owns a lot.” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2019, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/82 "2019-09-17T21:32:16Z")
Thing is that without the “literally” we’d understand it to mean he in fact owned a thousand CDs. Not very ambiguous. ---
**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:** [September 17, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/83 "2019-09-17T21:46:27Z")
Oh, and as for “quantum leap”: Quantum does not, in _any_ context, mean “small”. It means something more akin to “discrete”. A quantum leap, in any context, means that you go from one state to another, without passing through any states in between. It’s perfectly appropriate to apply it, for instance, to a new product that’s 10% better (by some metric) than the previous best product: They didn’t have to make a product that was 1%, or 5%, or 9% better along the way. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/84 "2019-09-18T13:25:20Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Thing is that without the “literally” we’d understand it to mean he in fact owned a thousand CDs. Not very ambiguous. Lemme tell you about Lojban. . . ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/85 "2019-09-18T17:57:14Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Thing is that without the “literally” we’d understand it to mean he in fact owned a thousand CDs. Not very ambiguous. I’m not sure we would, though, because how likely is it that the number of CDs in the collection is precisely 1,000? That would be odd enough that if someone meant that, they’d use a word like “precisely” or “exactly”: “He owns precisely 1,000 CDs.” If someone says, “He owns literally a thousand CDs,” I’m unlikely to think it means precisely 1,000 (since that word is missing). I’ll think it means a lot of CDs, same as I’d think if the person said, “He owns a thousand CDs.” It’s just an intensifier. I think the same reasoning applies to most times “literally” modifies a number. If you mean the person has exactly that number, the word “precisely” or “exactly” will be a better choice. It’s gonna come across as an intensifier. If you mean that he owns more than a thousand CDs, then the sentence, “He owns more than 1,000 CDs” is unambiguous. If you said that sentence but meant he owns a lot (but fewer than 1,000) CDs, I’d think you were communicating very poorly. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/86 "2019-09-19T00:46:06Z")
I’d have read it that way but yeah it still would not have been the best way to express the idea. I’d actually expect something more along the lines of: “he owns about a thousand CDs.”; or “… one thousand CDs, give or take a few.”; or even an exact number “… 1002 CDs.” If the incredulousness is a desired part of the communications then “he literally owns about a thousand CDs.” would work. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/87 "2019-09-19T01:00:57Z")
Before I posted that, I looked up the phrase “literally a thousand.” The uses I found mostly meant, “no shitting, more than a thousand.” Which is interesting, because it’s a third comprehensible use of “literally,” most closely related to “No exaggeration” meaning–but it doesn’t mean **literally** , as in, this is the exact truth. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/88 "2019-09-19T03:27:11Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Lemme tell you about Lojban. . . [About that](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/lojban.png) … Seriously, ambiguity can be a good thing sometimes. Are there many good jokes in Lojban? ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/89 "2019-09-19T04:10:36Z")
“Fear where old men tread.” ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/90 "2019-09-19T10:47:06Z")
In the usage we’re talking about, literally does not _mean_ figuratively. It’s being _used_ figuratively, as a hyperbolic intensifier of metaphorical language. It doesn’t mean figuratively, it means _pretend_ literally, not the same thing at all. Simile: **It’s as if she’s glowing.** The comparison is explicit. Metaphor: **She is** [pretend] **glowing.** We describe her as _actually_ glowing even though there’s an understanding that this is not literally true, as a way to intensify the imagery. Doubling down on the metaphor: **She is** [pretend] **literally** [pretend] **glowing.** A natural next step to intensify the imagery still further is to use a form of words that appears to deny that it was a metaphor, and to appear to claim that it _is_ literally true that she’s glowing; but of course, there’s still a perfectly clear understanding from context that it’s _not_ literally true. A couple of things for the naysaying prescriptivists to consider. (1) It’s a common prescriptivist argument that a proscribed usage introduces irreconcilable ambiguity into the language, that it literally makes it impossible to communicate ideas clearly. It’s certainly possible to construct isolated sentences where the intended meaning of “literally” is unclear. But there are all kinds of ambiguities in isolated sentences in natural language. We discern the intended meaning from context. Have any of my uses of “literally” in this post been ambiguous? Bear in mind that there’s a certain amount of natural selection in the evolution of language. If some usage were really inhibiting the efficient transfer of information in some significant way, I think it would _naturally_ fall out of favor without requiring any active proscription. (2) The idea that we should “reserve” certain words and make their figurative or hyperbolic usage taboo is likely to be a red rag to a bull. The notion that an expression is taboo probably makes it _more_ likely that it will be attractive for dramatic hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/91 "2019-09-20T13:57:17Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “Decimate” is a really useful example of just how entirely wrongheaded everything you wrote is. > \ > > “Decimate” stopped meaning “kill 1 in 10 of a group” in the early 17th century. > > \ What word has that meaning now? “Multiply by a factor of 0.9”? 'Cos that seems a trifle cumbersome. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/92 "2019-09-20T14:11:21Z")
Huh. Coulda sworn that I edited out that “approximately 21.854 times” bit. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/93 "2019-09-20T14:30:51Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > What word has that meaning now? “Multiply by a factor of 0.9”? > > 'Cos that seems a trifle cumbersome. Maybe the next time you find the need for a single word to mean “kill every tenth person” you can improvise and let us know what you come up with. Should be any day now, right? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/94 "2019-09-20T14:59:22Z")
That’s really the point. There’s no current need for a word for that concept any more than there is need for one that means to kill off 16% of the population. So the word got re-used for other meaning. If that repurposing had not happened it would have otherwise just disappeared from use other than by historians of that empire. Meanwhile we add new words for new concepts at a rapid clip. Anyone know if any authoritative source for the trend in the average American’s working vocabulary? My WAG is that it has increased over the last several decades as a greater fraction have become more highly educated. But that’s just a guess. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/95 "2019-09-20T17:03:08Z")
Thankfully, the OP didn’t use “nauseous”. I don’t think the board hamsters could have taken the strain. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/96 "2019-09-20T18:07:48Z")
It’s funny to see someone complain about the misuse of a word, while misusing it in the thread title. If we pedantically insist that “literally” must (must!) be used in its original sense, then “literally” means “related to words.” One might say “He literally told me to move along” - meaning that he used the words “move along.” One might also say "Translating ‘de nada’ literally gives you “of nothing” but of course the real meaning is “You’re welcome.” But to talk of “literal ignorance” is a figurative use - using “literal” to emphasize the ignorance one claims to see, just like “literally exploded” is a figurative use. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/97 "2019-09-20T18:46:14Z")
Can we talk about how “backslash” seems to mean “forward slash” now? ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/98 "2019-09-20T19:41:48Z")
Is this guy \ leaning back or stepping forward? I can never remember and frankly, I don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/99 "2019-09-20T20:02:06Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Is this guy \ leaning back or stepping forward? I can never remember and frankly, I don’t care. Regardless of whether you care about the figurative inspiration, the fact that choosing between the two symbols has consequences means that they need to have distinguishable names. If I recall correctly … If you’re typing a URL, you have to use the forward slash / In you’re specifying a directory path, you have to use the backslash \ They’re not interchangeable. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307/100 "2019-09-20T20:29:09Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > If you’re typing a URL, you have to use the forward slash / > > In you’re specifying a directory path, you have to use the backslash \ > > They’re not interchangeable. Some URL’s are “special” and "" is allowed. In particular Windows file system URLs. Many OSes uses “/” as a file separator. MS-DOS started with “/” as a command line option indicator. When they added paths they couldn’t use that so "" was used. In the early MS-DOS days there was a command (SWITCHAR=) to change which character to use. But that was often ignored by 3rd party software. You can even use “/” as a path separator on the command line even on Windows 10 and it will often work! But I do agree that knowing the difference between the two is a really good idea. And nothing to be proud of. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-figuratively-nauseated-by-your-literal-ignorance/840307.md?page=6)