# 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:** 3
**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, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/41 "2005-09-19T23:02:11Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > This, by the way, is flat out false. Words in all languages are multi-ordinal. How does the part you quoted disagree with your proposition that words are multi-ordinal? > [@threemae](#): > > Yes and yes. Brilliant riposte. How about telling me which and which? ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/42 "2005-09-19T23:18:30Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > 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. You certainly can … and, if you like, that’s the definition of Standard English in the descriptivist model; it’s the most widely understood dialect of English. (I suppose, if you want to split hairs, it’s the dialect which most closely approximates the largest number of individual idiolects … ) Other dialects may be more appropriate in specific circumstances, but (IMHO) you need to have a good sound reason for diverging from the standard dialect. Of course, the standard dialect changes over time … but I distrust the tendency of some people to dismiss every solecism or neologism with the phrase “well, English is constantly evolving”. Indeed it is; however, not everyone who talks ungrammatically is speaking the English of Tomorrow - some of them (I’d say most of them) are just making mistakes, muddying the waters of communication. (And goodness knows those waters are turbid enough to start with.) ---
**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, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/43 "2005-09-19T23:51:44Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > How does the part you quoted disagree with your proposition that words are multi-ordinal? Because having a few strictly defined uses would prevent them from being multiordinal in all situations. [This should give a good overview.](http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/multiordinal.html) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/44 "2005-09-20T00:06:34Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > It has words, each attached to one or more specific meanings. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > This, by the way, is flat out false. Words in all languages are multi-ordinal. […] This should give a good overview. The site you linked to in your last post actually seems to be claiming that the term “multiordinal” as defined there is obsolete: “In the light of more modern theory, Korzybski’s special term, ‘multiordinal’ has fallen into the category of obsolete. By modern distinctions the definition Korzybski gives is now incoherent.” And further, “Once the distinctions not made by Korzybski became apparent, the usefulness of the term ‘multiordinal’, as Korzybski defined it, became marginal, obsolete, etc.” So the link you appear to be relying on to explain the significance of multiordinality seems actually to be **denying** that it has a useful significance. Could you clarify what you mean by “multiordinal”, and why you think the site you linked to gives a “good overview” of it? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > 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. And he is. That’s why he posted what he did. Count me in with the literalist camp on “literally”—I like having a word that means “in accordance with the literal sense of the words, without hyperbole, not figuratively”, and I’ll continue to use it that way and to discourage contradictory uses of it that make its meaning ambiguous. I notice that all of the anti-literalists here have avoided **Bricker** ’s question about how to tell whether somebody is in danger if someone else says that he “literally” means that he could shoot her. Either explain to us an unambiguous way of distinguishing between the two meanings of “literally” (one meaning “literally” and one meaning “figuratively”); or else come right out and admit that accepting two contradictory meanings of the word sometimes makes its intended meaning ambiguous, and therefore **impedes** communication instead of facilitating it. > [@Grelby](#): > > You are still perfectly able to distinguish between the use of ‘literally’ as a general intensifier and ‘literally’ to mean “in actual fact.” How? I agree that in **many** cases it’s clear when “literally” is being used to mean “figuratively”, but how do you unambiguously distinguish the intended meaning in **all** cases? Language evolves, sure, but just as in any evolutionary system, not every new mutation successfully adapts itself over time to take the place of the earlier population. ISTM that producing vehement and vocal resistance and rejection in a large number of native speakers is a symptom of some degree of linguistic maladaptation. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/45 "2005-09-20T00:08:26Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Because having a few strictly defined uses would prevent them from being multiordinal in all situations. [This should give a good overview.](http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/multiordinal.html) Help me out here. In this example from your link, the meaning of the _statement_ changes, but the meaning of the word “never” is constant. Or am I missing something basic? > [@](#): > > As this was explained at some seminars, where S stands for a statement and M stands for a statement with a particular multiordinal term, the expression in general would have the form M(S), and it would immediately be possible to say M(M(S)), as well as M(M(M(S))). A paradigm case is the term ‘never’, where S=“It’s bad.” and M(x)=“Never Say, ‘x’.” > > · John: “It’s bad.” S > · Larry: “Never say, ‘It’s bad.’” M(S) > · Moe: “Never say, ‘Never say, “It’s bad.”’” M(M(S)) > · Curley: “Never say, ‘Never say, “Never say, ‘It’s bad.’”’” M(M(M(S))) > > Multiordinal terms are terms that are applied to statements and can be applied to statements about these statements, etc., and the meaning differs at each level. In the example above, one contradicts the other - “reversing” in some sense the overall value of the admonition to John. At each level the “prescription” for John differs. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/46 "2005-09-20T00:13:46Z")
Sometimes when people say “literally” I really don’t know what they mean. “I went to a boring party last night; there were literally two people there.” I have to say, “Do you really mean only two?” “Well, no, I’d say about seven.” So it’s not always clear to me what the person is saying. ---
**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 20, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/47 "2005-09-20T00:19:49Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Help me out here. In this example from your link, the meaning of the _statement_ changes, but the meaning of the word “never” is constant. Or am I missing something basic? Well… the meaning can remain the same, or it can change as it becomes self reflexive or refers to different things… but yes, I’m not explaining it quite right. (Or perhaps I grok wrongness) [Here’s a bit from Korzybski](http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/motssq.html). Maybe he’ll put it better than I can… I’m kinda spent right now, so if you require further elaboration or if you still disagree I’ll do my best to do some better writing. Right now, I’m just beat. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/48 "2005-09-20T00:25:20Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Well… the meaning can remain the same, or it can change as it becomes self reflexive or refers to different things… but yes, I’m not explaining it quite right. (Or perhaps I grok wrongness) > > [Here’s a bit from Korzybski](http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/motssq.html). Maybe he’ll put it better than I can… I’m kinda spent right now, so if you require further elaboration or if you still disagree I’ll do my best to do some better writing. Right now, I’m just beat. Thanks. I’ll look into it more carefully in the meantime. Cheers! ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/49 "2005-09-20T00:32:03Z")
> [@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… Did you mean he’s literally a Nazi? ---
**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 20, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/50 "2005-09-20T00:43:24Z")
The first argument that came up was the argument that change in the language can’t be avoided. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean we should embrace changes that hurt rather than help the language. Literally may be a lost cause in some quarters, but I’ve heard plenty of people, including language professionals, stand up for the correct usage over the years. I cannot recall seeing any professional writer use literally the wrong way, which to me means that it’s still worth using it the right way. There are cases where we want to know whether the speaker or writer is exaggerating or not, and literally comes in handy in those cases. As such, it’s a useful word, and we shouldn’t just sacrifice it on the alter of language evolution. The next argument is that switching away forom the rules of standardized English is acceptable so long as we can still be understood. A few minor variations, the linguistic evolutionists tell us, won’t prevent anyone from communicating or receiving meaning. This might have made an interesting academic debate fifty years ago, but not any more. Now there are some quarters where the language is disintegrating so quickly that meaning is largely falling by the wayside. Anyone who disagrees has probably not tried doing volunteer work in an inner city middle school recently. You can, however, get a small taste of what I’m talking about by hanging around message boards devoted to child rappers such as the horrendously named “L’il Romeo”. Some children today have reached been exposed to so much abused English and not enough correct English that they really can’t communicate well, and it will hurt them when they try to get a college education, a decent job, and other worthwhile things. If I sound bitter, I have good reason. Last week I had to argue with a student who felt she had been unfairly penalized on a test. She insisted that the words “one” and “many” actually meant the same thing. I insisted otherwise. It took a good ten minutes before she conceeded the point. But she’s a native English speaker, so I suppose I’d better give her full credit since it’s apparently now metaphysically impossible for her to make a mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/51 "2005-09-20T00:53:50Z")
I’m just dumbfounded that there are people stupid enough to jump from “Language evolves and changes” to “A native speaker cannot make a grammatical mistake.” Talk about loony fucking nuts going ballistic. Sheesh ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/52 "2005-09-20T00:53:50Z")
> [@ITR championn](#): > > But she’s a native English speaker, so I suppose I’d better give her full credit since it’s apparently now metaphysically impossible for her to make a mistake. Freaky, huh. You don’t teach English, do you? Because you could literally be out of a job, what with anything said by a native English speaker being grammatically correct and all. I suppose that even when a native English speaker is speaking, say, French, that speaker is also speaking grammatically perfect English. > [@grelby](#): > > no native English speaker can unintentionally speak an ungrammatical sentence. Yep. Seems pretty clear. I suppose he would be speaking grammatically correct French as well, since it is impossible for him to do otherwise. ---
**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 20, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/53 "2005-09-20T00:58:36Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > I’m just dumbfounded that there are people stupid enough to jump from “Language evolves and changes” to “A native speaker cannot make a grammatical mistake.” > > Talk about loony fucking nuts going ballistic. Sheesh Have you ever studied linguistics? It’s an honest question, I’m curious. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/54 "2005-09-20T01:02:14Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Have you ever studied linguistics? > > It’s an honest question, I’m curious. Have you ever studied logical fallacies? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/55 "2005-09-20T01:04:01Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > Now there are some quarters where the language is disintegrating so quickly that meaning is largely falling by the wayside. Anyone who disagrees has probably not tried doing volunteer work in an inner city middle school recently. You can, however, get a small taste of what I’m talking about by hanging around message boards devoted to child rappers such as the horrendously named “L’il Romeo”. Some children today have reached been exposed to so much abused English and not enough correct English that they really can’t communicate well, and it will hurt them when they try to get a college education, a decent job, and other worthwhile things. Different issues here. As was discussed _ad nauseam_ in the “Ebonics” thread that **liberty** linked to, different dialects of English (such as Black Vernacular English, Ebonics, whatever you call it) are not the same thing as “abused English”. The problem is that many children don’t get enough exposure to the dialect known as Standard American English or somesuch, which is the dialect they’re expected to master for their educational and career success, to be able to use it effectively in school. And yes, that means that they **can’t** communicate well in SAE. That certainly is a problem. But that’s essentially a second-language-learning issue, somewhat obscured because the “two languages” in this case are closely related dialects. It doesn’t really have any bearing on whether and why **native speakers of SAE** should reject or accept a particular usage **in SAE**. Whether the word “literally” means only “literally” or sometimes also “figuratively” has essentially zero impact on whether non-SAE-speakers in cultures that use other English dialects are able to learn SAE successfully. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/56 "2005-09-20T01:08:26Z")
It’s a naive understanding of linguistics that supposes – because prescriptive grammar is out of favor and because one thus learned in Intro Lingustics that prescriptive grammar is “wrong” – that all there is is descriptive grammar, and that all there is is common usage. In fact, grammar is more complicated than that. There is a descriptive grammar that is of interest to linguists, but that does not erradicate the prescriptive grammar of interest to writers and scholars who want not to sound like damned fools, nor does it magically absolve you of all responsibility to understand what words mean when you use them. ---
**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 20, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/57 "2005-09-20T01:08:56Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > Have you ever studied logical fallacies? So that’s a ‘no’ to my question, you haven’t studied linguistics? ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/58 "2005-09-20T01:10:48Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So that’s a ‘no’ to my question, you haven’t studied linguistics? And I take it thats a no to mine? Appeal to authority, slippery slope, Red Herring. Care to go for 4? ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/59 "2005-09-20T01:11:38Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So that’s a ‘no’ to my question, you haven’t studied linguistics? So that’s a “no” to his questions. How many linguistics classes have you taken? One? An intro class in college? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/60 "2005-09-20T01:17:12Z")
Nope, **Epimetheus** , **Finn** is making a valid point there. The statement that “a native speaker cannot make a grammatical mistake” is certainly debatable, but it is not nonsensical in the context of linguistics. The problem (and I am not a professional linguist although I’ve read something about the subject, so be warned that this isn’t an expert opinion) is that the definition and identification of language and its rules is ultimately rather circular. What are the accepted grammatical structures for a given language? The ones established by the usage of native speakers. Who counts as a native speaker of a given language? One who uses the accepted grammatical structures. See the problem? Taken at face value, this circularity really does imply that **a native speaker cannot make a linguistic mistake in his/her native language, because linguistic correctness is defined as what native speakers do**. It is a long hard slog to get from this to concepts of “native speaker” and “grammatical correctness” that satisfy both professional linguists and the layman’s ordinary-language sense of what’s logical. And be warned, it involves talking about things like “transformational grammar” and “speech communities”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414.md?page=4)