# I'm literally blowing a gasket over the word 'literally' **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 19, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414 "2005-09-19T19:52:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![King\_Harvest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@King\_Harvest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/King_Harvest)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/1 "2005-09-19T19:52:22Z")
The misuse of this word has reached epidemic proportions. Please stop it, people. [Example (second paragraph).](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6595050&postcount=1) ^^^^ 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: ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/2 "2005-09-19T19:55:47Z")
Language evolves. The meaning is perfectly clear. ---
**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, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/3 "2005-09-19T19:57:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/4 "2005-09-19T20:04:52Z")
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](http://greatsfandf.com/english-language.php) on the abuse of the English language. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/5 "2005-09-19T20:09:27Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/6 "2005-09-19T20:14:10Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/7 "2005-09-19T20:29:22Z")
Here is what [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) says about [literally.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literally) > [@](#): > > Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of “in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.” In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example “The 300,000 Unionists… will be literally thrown to the wolves.” The practice does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itselfif it did, the word would long since have come to mean “virtually” or “figuratively”but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive, as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended. So it apprears that the OP was mistaken, and that it is a perfectly valid use of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/8 "2005-09-19T20:32:18Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > 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](http://greatsfandf.com/english-language.php) on the abuse of the English language. What\*\* ITR\*\* and **TYM** said. And thanks for that great link, although I would hardly call it a rant. . ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/9 "2005-09-19T20:34:59Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > So it apprears that the OP was mistaken, and that it is a perfectly valid use of the word. Maybe the OP wasn’t being literal. ---
**Author:** ![tremorviolet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@tremorviolet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tremorviolet)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/10 "2005-09-19T20:46:42Z")
My beef with the OP: “handful” does not only mean “able to fit in a hand”. It also means a [low number](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=handful). (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. ---
**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, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/11 "2005-09-19T20:51:04Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > The English language is a device for communicating meaning. Precisely. Meaning was communicated. The person who used the language therefore used it correctly. Your superstitions about the language are your problem, not theirs. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/12 "2005-09-19T20:53:12Z")
> [@tremorviolet](#): > > My beef with the OP: “handful” does not only mean “able to fit in a hand”. It also means a [low number](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=handful). (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. I think you meant “is not tooken.” 🙂 And you are exactly correct about handful. A small number can literally be a handful, in the prescriptive sense. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/13 "2005-09-19T20:56:16Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Precisely. Meaning was communicated. The person who used the language therefore used it correctly. Your superstitions about the language are your problem, not theirs. > > Daniel So I guess it is possible to use it incorrectly, then, if it is possible to use it correctly. Did you read his link? Can you point out where the author veers into superstition? ---
**Author:** ![tremorviolet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@tremorviolet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tremorviolet)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/14 "2005-09-19T21:04:32Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I think you meant “is not tooken.” 🙂 > > And you are exactly correct about handful. A small number can literally be a handful, in the prescriptive sense. :smack: (what’s that law about invariably making grammar errors in a thread about grammar?) ---
**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, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/15 "2005-09-19T21:06:52Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > So I guess it is possible to use it incorrectly, then, if it is possible to use it correctly. 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. Daniel ---
**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, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/16 "2005-09-19T21:12:06Z")
I should give an example of the linked article’s foolishness: > [@](#): > > It is an interesting and–I think–revealing quirk of descriptionism that it is more concerned with sheer defiance of established custom than with any consistent position. 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. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/17 "2005-09-19T21:12:41Z")
Like, seriously. Duude. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/18 "2005-09-19T21:14:32Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > 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. > > Daniel 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. ---
**Author:** ![KSO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@KSO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KSO)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/19 "2005-09-19T21:14:40Z")
“She is such a whore that her two main food groups are sperm and penicillin. Literally.” ---
**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, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/20 "2005-09-19T21:16:14Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I am truthfully surprised that you would not see it through. 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. Daniel [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414.md?page=2)