^^^^ When andrewdt85 says “there are literally only a handful of folks who fit this description,” does he mean that there are a few pixie-sized under 40 billionaires living in America? They’d have to be pretty darn small to be able to fit in someone’s hand.
I blame Wolf Blitzer for this mess. That motherfucker literally uses the word in every other sentence. I could have sworn I heard him say once that helicopters were literally picking up people off of roofs during the aftermath of Katrina!
Holy shit – thanks for the clarification, dude! Because if you had just said helicopters were picking up people off of roofs I might have mistakenly thought that you were speaking figuratively. :rolleyes:
Question: do you know what people mean when they use “literally” like this? Or does it leave you honestly confused?
If you know what they mean, and they know you know what they mean, then the only problem is that you’re laboring under the mistaken impression that English is a programmatic language like C++ instead of a natural language like Swedish, Sanskrit, or Swahili*.
“Literally” used in many contexts is an intensifier and, mirabile dictu, isn’t meant literally. If you interpret “literally” literally, you’ll run into all sorts of problems. You need to understand literally metaphorically.
Daniel
I know Swahili is originally a trade language, but c’mon, I was going for the alliteration.
If I hear the argument that one must accept any pointless and regressive misues of the English language merely because “everybody knows what it means” one more time, then I will figuratively blow a gasket. The English language is a device for communicating meaning. It has words, each attached to one or more specific meanings. “Literally” used to be a useful word. Thanks to those shoddy buffoons who decided to employ it to mean the opposite of its correct meaning, it is now useless. Thanks to them, the English language now lacks an effective means to disinguish literal and figurative usages with a single adverb. Nice going, chumps.
By the way, King Harvest, you and others sympathetic to the cause would probably enjoy reading this outstanding rant on the abuse of the English language.
Oh goody another word nazi (the OP) that is incorrect in his assumption about the meaning and usage of words. Go get Feydeau and we will literally have a party…
The evolution of language includes not only those attempting to give a word a new meaning, but those who fight against that. Simply because some use the word incorrectly does not mean I must, or that I must accept such usage. If any word can mean any thing that any person wants it to, where are we then? At the Tower of Babel. Literally.
My beef with the OP: “handful” does not only mean “able to fit in a hand”. It also means a low number. (yes, it’s yet another English word that is not taked literally) So arguing that “literally a handful” implies only that which fits into a hand is just silly. There are other instances of “literally” which make far less sense.
Precisely. Meaning was communicated. The person who used the language therefore used it correctly. Your superstitions about the language are your problem, not theirs.
Absolutely it’s possible to use the word “literally” incorrectly.
I ate a literally for breakfast today.
If you didn’t picture me eating a piece of toast with peanut butter and jelly, then I misused the word “literally.” That is, I didn’t communicate effectively.
And I read enough of the link to realize that the writer wants me to get off his lawn. His characterization of descriptivism shows either ignorance or disingenuity on his part.
I should give an example of the linked article’s foolishness:
As an analogy, a flat-earther might claim that we ought to be able to see an infinite distance along the ground. A scientist might say, “Maybe you WISH that were the case, but that’s not how Earth works, and wishing otherwise isn’t gonna change anything. You can’t see past the curve of the earth.”
The flat-earther might then say, “It is an interesting and–I think–revealing quirk of science that it is more concerned with sheer defiance of useful lines of sight than with any consistent position.”
Superstitious nonsense. The article seems to think that descriptivism is just prescriptivism wearing black hats. It’s like how the Catholic Church used to be convinced that unbelievers were really just believers conducting black masses.
If it makes you happy to distort linguistics, go for it. But I’ll continue to argue that language works the way it works, and that criticizing people for using language effectively is useless.
I am truthfully surprised that you would not see it through. I suspect nothing will make you change your mind on this issue, but you usually mount a better defense than "[he] wants me to get off his lawn. If you can get past your objection to his definition of “descriptivist” there is a lot there to think about, and rebut if you have the will. I saw nothing to suggest superstition, unless you are using a special definition.
I might read through the full article at some point, but when it’s introduced as a rant for sympathizers, I gotta confess, that wasn’t the most persuasive ad in its favor.
