# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/21 "2005-09-19T21:19:12Z")
Hmmm. JOHN: I am so furious at Camille! I could shoot her on sight! ED: Really? Do you mean that literally? JOHN: I do! Question: is Camille in actual danger of being shot? ---
**Author:** ![Grelby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a5b964/32.png) [@Grelby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grelby)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/22 "2005-09-19T21:20:33Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > 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? He veers almost immediately into superstition with the notion that there is any significant semantic difference between the use of ‘I’ and ‘me,’ and that any language ever seeks to avoid ambiguity. He’s wrong on both counts (and not only that, his test sentence is, stylistically speaking, awkward and contrived. Most speakers would say ‘more,’ rather than ‘better’ in order to avoid the ambiguity he’s so concerned about). Ambiguity is perfectly achievable within written sentences that obey prescriptive rules. Ambiguity happens all the time in spoken sentences, and yet listeners rarely have any difficulty deciphering the meaning of the sentence. In spoken English in particular, in sentences where it would be grammatical to say either ‘I’ or ‘me’ (“This is better for John and me,” “This is better for John and I,”) there is no semantic distinction between them. Even in sentences where you can only use one of them (“Chocolate tastes good to me”), a sentence constructed using the wrong pronoun ("#Chocolate tastes good to I") is ill-formed only syntactically, not semantically. Nope, sorry, I don’t buy it. I am perfectly happy to grant that conventions of style and word choice mean a great deal when it comes to the aesthetic impact of the language, either spoken or written, but there is simply NO basis for rules for “correct usage,” because, malapropisms aside, _no native English speaker can unintentionally speak an ungrammatical sentence._ Worried about losing a useful word? Get the fuck over yourselves. You are still perfectly able to distinguish between the use of ‘literally’ as a general intensifier and ‘literally’ to mean “in actual fact.” That’s the amazing thing about language - you don’t actually have to worry about it! In fact, it is futile to do so. PLEASE stop bleating about this nonsense. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/23 "2005-09-19T21:21:49Z")
I’m with the OP on this. If the meaning of literally is changed to a mere emphatic explanation, what new word takes the place of literally? And how does language benefit with this new use of the word literally? ---
**Author:** ![Feydeau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/df788c/32.png) [@Feydeau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Feydeau)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/24 "2005-09-19T21:23:28Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > 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… I’m ready for a party! I have to agree with the OP – “literally” when misused badly enough just makes me laugh and feel sorry for the poor schlub who misuses it thusly. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/25 "2005-09-19T21:24:07Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Whether or not you can see beyond the curvature of the earth is derived from a consistent position with respect to the earth’s properties. When self-styled descriptivists can do the same vis-a-vis the properties of colloquial language, then perhaps I will be convinced by this argument. Until then, the idea that prescriptivism is somehow superstitious does not persuade. _Literally_ may be a poor example, since it is attested about 100 years ago. I cheerfully maintain that this usage of the word is poor. > [@](#): > > But I’ll continue to argue that language works the way it works, and that criticizing people for using language effectively is useless. I suppose I will have to continue to argue that how language “works” is a dialectical process and not merely the uncritical adoption of any neologism that a critical mass of people start using. As such, criticism of how people use language is not only not useless but an integral part of the evolution of language. ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/26 "2005-09-19T21:24:59Z")
I understand the OPs point, but the example is poorly-chosen. The TITLE of the thread is of course an excellent example. “Literally blowing a gasket” is a contradiction in terms. But like the others in this thread, I understand the meaning of the linked example quite well. People often use hyperbole with small numbers of things. For example, “There are only, like, 2 people in the world who haven’t seen _The Simpsons_ on TV.” has quite a different meaning from “There are literally only 2 people who haven’t seen _The Simpsons_ on TV.” So saying “literally a handful” means literally a very small number, _as opposed to_ claiming a very small number as an _exaggeration_. It’s true that “handful” is a figure of speech, but in the case of “literally blowing a gasket”, the word “literally” is completely superfluous, which is why it’s so annoying. In the case of “literally a handful”, it is not. ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/27 "2005-09-19T21:28:29Z")
(Although I admit it would have made more sense to say one could “literally count them on one hand”, which is probably what he really meant.) ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/28 "2005-09-19T21:32:00Z")
> [@Feydeau](#): > > I’m ready for a party! > > I have to agree with the OP – “literally” when misused badly enough just makes me laugh and feel sorry for the poor schlub who misuses it thusly. Oh god the irony…it burns… > [@dictionary.com](#): > > Usage Note: Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish. The word has subsequently gained some currency in educated usage, but it is still often regarded as incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing thus can still be used as in the examples above; in other styles this way, like this, and other such expressions are more natural. LOL…LMAO…ROFLMAO… ---
**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, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/29 "2005-09-19T21:36:04Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > .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 Let’s start with this, and see if there is a distortion of linguistics in his summary. > [@](#): > > English was not in any way systematized till relatively late in its history; moreover, it was not authoritatively systematized till the early twentieth century. Corollary: many–most, if not all–writers prior to the twentieth century will, however great their language abilities, have used, at times or commonly, grammar, syntax, diction, and orthography different from what was standard by the early twentieth century and, usually, from each other; that is utterly irrelevant to what general acceptation was by the early twentieth century. To hold otherwise is strongly analogous to holding that because judicial punishment by burning at the stake was once common, such burnings today would be justified and acceptable. The past is a foreign country and only strangers live there. Shakespeare used a double negative now and then, but not even he can reach forward through time to make the modern urchin’s “I don’t got none” into sound English. > By the early to middle part of the twentieth century, the rules of English usage were pretty stable, generally agreed on by authorities, and generally accepted by (if not universally known to) the English-speaking public. Corollary: there is a definite baseline for English grammar, syntax, diction, and orthography, and the consequences of changes, actual or proposed, to those aspects of English can readily be evaluated by comparison with that baseline. > Changes in English usage are neither welcome nor unwelcome simply owing to their status as changes; it is their effect on the powers of the language (when competently used) that determines the kind and degree of their welcome. Corollary: whether one will oppose or welcome a given change requires–to be a rational judgement–an evaluation of its effects on the powers of the language. Here he is stating his position without contrasting it to descriptivism. Do you object to any part of it? Is any part a distortion of linguistics, or superstitious? > [@grelby](#): > > He veers almost immediately into superstition with the notion that there is any significant semantic difference between the use of ‘I’ and ‘me,’ and that any language ever seeks to avoid ambiguity. He’s wrong on both counts (and not only that, his test sentence is, stylistically speaking, awkward and contrived. You say he’s wrong, I say he’s not. People who agree with you are right, people who disagree are superstitious. Got it. > [@grelby](#): > > there is simply NO basis for rules for “correct usage,” The author suggests that it facilitates putting thoughts into other people’s minds. > [@grelby](#): > > no native English speaker can unintentionally speak an ungrammatical sentence. The only way I can make sense of this is as a corollary to “There is no such thing as grammar.” Is that what you mean? > [@grelby](#): > > PLEASE stop bleating about this nonsense. Thank you. It isn’t bleating and I will not stop. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Feydeau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/df788c/32.png) [@Feydeau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Feydeau)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/30 "2005-09-19T21:39:59Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Oh god the irony…it burns… > > LOL…LMAO…ROFLMAO… Whoosh. ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/31 "2005-09-19T21:41:16Z")
> [@Feydeau](#): > > Whoosh. You wish! ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/32 "2005-09-19T21:48:05Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > I’m with the OP on this. If the meaning of literally is changed to a mere emphatic explanation, what new word takes the place of literally? And how does language benefit with this new use of the word literally? So does this mean words can only have one meaning? What about words that have distinctly opposite meanings (eg cleave)? The meaning of a word can be parsed from it’s use in a sentence. If the language doesn’t benefit from the new use of the word, then why do people feel the need to use it? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/33 "2005-09-19T21:56:35Z")
> [@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. Amen! I’m on your side, and on the side of the OP. But, in the other side’s defense, it can be tricky deciding just what is literal and what is a figure of speech. “A handful” of something is, indeed, a small number of something, but the word itself is a sort of figure of speech. In its origin at least, it means an amount that could fit in your hand. That’s the image the word conjures up. If you talk about “a handful of something,” I’m going to picture an actual hand, full of that thing—say, a handful of Cheerios or a handful of pennies. If you’re talking about something that wouldn’t actually fit in someone’s hand (like people or buildings), I’m going to think, “Oh, it’s just a figure of speech.” But if you talk about a _literal_ handful of people or buildings, I’m going to think, WTF? What do you mean by a “literal handful”? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/34 "2005-09-19T22:31:22Z")
I’ll interrupt the grammatical throwdown with my favorite misuse of the word literally, from the movie “The Big Picture” (starring the only man with a Bacon score of zero, Kevin Bacon): Some landlord, talking about an actor he’d helped become famous: “I made that kid a star, a big star! And then he turned around and crapped in my face. Literally!” (I’m guessing I’m the only person who will think this post is funny. Ah, well…) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/35 "2005-09-19T22:41:46Z")
Even from a strictly descriptivist point of view, at any one time there’s a set of production rules that describe a language, and there are disadvantages to departing from them - those disadvantages being, each departure makes it less likely that other speakers of the same language will correctly comprehend you. if i wuz to rite like this! wiv non?standurd speling an punktuashion, by the strict descriptivist standard proposed by some in this thread, I’d be using standard English; I’m a native English speaker, and a native English speaker reading it can understand me … eventually. Nonetheless, it’s _incorrect_ in terms of the currently prevailing rules of language … and, _because_ it’s incorrect, it’s harder for someone to read it and understand it. Poor grammar, and the use of words in non-standard ways, are also barriers to communication and comprehension. To take the example in the OP, the word “literally” can now be used in two ways, to mean “literally” and “not literally”. I don’t think this is a great aid to clarity, here. Of course, I can usually work out from the context which sense is intended. Well, of _course_ I can; I’m familiar with current usages and misuses, and moreover I have an MA in freakin’ linguistics, so you’re going to have to work hard to mangle the English language so badly I _can’t_ puzzle out the meaning, in the end. But it’d help _me_ a whole lot if people would choose their words carefully. In short: you don’t use correct English because the Great Grammar Marker In The Sky will wave a red pencil at you if you don’t. You use correct English so that other English speakers will understand you correctly. Simple as that. ---
**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, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/36 "2005-09-19T22:43:43Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I’ll interrupt the grammatical throwdown with my favorite misuse of the word literally, from the movie “The Big Picture” (starring the only man with a Bacon score of zero, Kevin Bacon): > > Some landlord, talking about an actor he’d helped become famous: “I made that kid a star, a big star! And then he turned around and crapped in my face. Literally!” > > (I’m guessing I’m the only person who will think this post is funny. Ah, well…) Perhaps he did mean it literally. (There’s an image for you.) ---
**Author:** ![liberty3701](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3d9bf3/32.png) [@liberty3701](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/liberty3701)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/37 "2005-09-19T22:52:45Z")
> [@some dumbass](#): > > English was not in any way systematized till relatively late in its history; moreover, it was not authoritatively systematized till the early twentieth century. What does he mean by systematized?! It’s an natural language; it has an inherent system to it … we don’t need some schlub coming in and “systematizing” it. > [@](#): > > Shakespeare used a double negative now and then, but not even he can reach forward through time to make the modern urchin’s “I don’t got none” into sound English. Sound English?! It may not be what you should write in a paper, but I think we all get his meaning. When Mick Jagger sings “I can’t get no satisfaction,” did you honestly think he meant he could get some? > [@](#): > > the rules of English usage were pretty stable, You know, the rules of Latin are really stable, and you know why? Cause it’s DEAD. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Is any part a distortion of linguistics, or superstitious? Yes and yes. I’m gonna go have a beer, because you’ve totally stressed me out. I swore I would never get into another linguistics discussion after [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=326110&highlight=ebonics) because prescriptivists who refuse to listen stress me the fuck out. Just ignore this post… ---
**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, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/38 "2005-09-19T22:55:18Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > The English language is a device for communicating meaning. It has words, each attached to one or more specific meanings. This, by the way, is flat out false. Words in all languages are multi-ordinal. > [@ITR champion](#): > > “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. The sky is falling! The sky is falling! ~yawn~ The English language is doing just fine, people can still use the connotation and denotation of various words, and if you really wanted to be exacting in your use of the word ‘literally’, you could. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/39 "2005-09-19T22:56:02Z")
> [@Feydeau](#): > > Whoosh. Yeah, right. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/40 "2005-09-19T22:56:19Z")
> [@Steve Wright](#): > > Even from a strictly descriptivist point of view, at any one time there’s a set of production rules that describe a language, and there are disadvantages to departing from them - those disadvantages being, each departure makes it less likely that other speakers of the same language will correctly comprehend you. > > if i wuz to rite like this! wiv non?standurd speling an punktuashion, by the strict descriptivist standard proposed by some in this thread, I’d be using standard English; I’m a native English speaker, and a native English speaker reading it can understand me … eventually. Nonetheless, it’s _incorrect_ in terms of the currently prevailing rules of language … and, _because_ it’s incorrect, it’s harder for someone to read it and understand it. Poor grammar, and the use of words in non-standard ways, are also barriers to communication and comprehension. > > To take the example in the OP, the word “literally” can now be used in two ways, to mean “literally” and “not literally”. I don’t think this is a great aid to clarity, here. > > Of course, I can usually work out from the context which sense is intended. Well, of _course_ I can; I’m familiar with current usages and misuses, and moreover I have an MA in freakin’ linguistics, so you’re going to have to work hard to mangle the English language so badly I _can’t_ puzzle out the meaning, in the end. But it’d help _me_ a whole lot if people would choose their words carefully. > > In short: you don’t use correct English because the Great Grammar Marker In The Sky will wave a red pencil at you if you don’t. You use correct English so that other English speakers will understand you correctly. Simple as that. Well, not quite. You use language to communicate effectively. To do that it is best to tailor your use of the language to the people you are trying to communicate to. If the people you are communicating with use a “non-standard” dialect with different rules of grammer, then it is best to use that dialect. You cannot single out one English dialect and say it is more correct than any other. You can say that some of the rules of grammer are more widely spread than others and to effectively communicate to a wide variety of people it would be best to stick to those rules though. Like speaking on a message board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414.md?page=3)