# 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:** 8
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/141 "2005-09-20T23:37:08Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > This isn’t a matter of informed vs. ignorant. It’s two different forms of ignorance. One ignorance is not knowing how linguists look at language. The other ignorance is supposing that because one has learned – presumably in Linguistics 101 – that linguists have a different meaning of grammar, the old meaning of grammar has vanished. One grammar describes language, the other prescribes it, but neither cancels the other one out. I reckon even Dorkness and Again run their resumes by someone when they’re applying for jobs. It’s all well and good under the cover of Internet darkness to thumb your nose at the grammarians, but in the end we all humbly check in with our Strunk & White and worry about looking like rubes. Yea, verily. As it was, so must it always be. Seyla. Writing well is largely dependent upon understanding what ‘good writing’ is; or what’s effective writing within certain constraints. Writing is not the same thing as speaking, at all. Totally different critter. This holds true in terms of education, by the way. How many students do you remember liking grammar drills? How much attention did they pay? > [@cricetus](#): > > We avail ourselves of the shibboleths of the educated class. Mmmmm… shibbolethtastic! And it stays crunchy in milk! > [@cricetus](#): > > In the ongoing caveman analogy, I would have present-day primitives making their axes out of dried turds, and a different tribesman approach trying to explain that stone works better. The would-be craftsman shudders and dismisses the man with the stone. Pshaw. If **I** can take a whack at this ongoing caveman analogy: There were once cavemen who made their weapons out of the tortured souls of the damned. There were some other cavemen who were made entirely of tacos. Still other cavemen froliced in the fields and cavorted just as you would imagine merry cavemen used to frolic. Then there were ninja vampire cyborgs with laser eyes that, like, wrecked everybody’s shit all up and it was fucking horrible good gods there were people running and being melted by evil cyborg vampire eyes o’ burnin’ burnin’ hate! Goddamn intellectuals. ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/142 "2005-09-20T23:45:40Z")
Even a descriptivist would say that you have to cater your dialect to your intended audience to effective communicate with them. If that means using some form of Standard English, then that is what you do. But to then say Standard English is better than some other dialect would be wrong. Maybe it the one that is most widely used to communicate with the largest number of people, but that just means it is widely used, not that it is more corrrect than any other dialect. Standard English can be the _lingua franca_ of English dialects, everybody’s second language if you like. ---
**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, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/143 "2005-09-20T23:54:40Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Especially for instance in the sentence “my job is literally eye-glazingly boring”. Does that mean that: > > A) A frosted coating is appearing over my eyes when I sit at my desk? > B) When I sit at my desk, my eyes glaze over in the sense that I have trouble focusing on reading due to boredom? > C) I’m just as bored at my job as people who are so bored they have trouble focusing their eyes? > > Of course, A) is ludicrous. But the use of “literally” as a possible intensive means that sentence could mean either B) or C). Especially for instance in the sentence “Keep your eyes on the board.” Does that mean that: A) The student is being punished and has to get chalk dust in his eyes? B) Sit in your desk, do not talk, do not look away, do not daydream, pay attention? C) There is a board of wood. Make sure every time you write the letter I, it is on the board? Of course, A) is ludicrous. But the use of “keep your eyes on the board” as a possible intensive means that sentence could mean either B) or C). They… they… they’re idiomatic phrases! Run away! Run away! ---
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/144 "2005-09-20T23:55:02Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Goddamn intellectuals. God probably has damned them, and they say he’s dead. Still, better to fry with the intellectuals than go to heaven with the idiots. ---
**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, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/145 "2005-09-20T23:55:05Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **Epimetheus** , do you think that, if I say, “I was Zygote all day, and now I’m tired,” I am likely to have my audience understand the concept that I am attempting to communicate? Ah, it was you then, not Finn. I see. No, the audience doesn’t understand the concept. It is ambigious and “murky.” It could mean you were turned into a zygote for a day, or it could mean you were sleeping all day, studying all day, or that you were mentally retarded all day. It only communicates the concept that you are trying to say _something_, it definately doesn’t convey exactly what. Its the same as making wild gestures and grunting. Primitive and inefficient. You know what. This is my last post in this thread. I communicated with Finn and we cleared that up. I really don’t want to get into a match with a zealot on a mission. I admited I was wrong, I was ignorant and some of that was cleared up, sure. However, no amount of armwaving is going to make me accept **that** doctrine. So I guess in this regard, I am exactly as immune to discussion as you are. So an impasse. ---
**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, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/146 "2005-09-20T23:56:05Z")
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. ---
**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, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/147 "2005-09-20T23:58:12Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? ---
**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 21, 2005, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/148 "2005-09-21T00:05:49Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > Ah, it was you then, not Finn. I see. No, the audience doesn’t understand the concept. It is ambigious and “murky.” It could mean you were turned into a zygote for a day, or it could mean you were sleeping all day, studying all day, or that you were mentally retarded all day. > > It only communicates the concept that you are trying to say _something_, it definately doesn’t convey exactly what. Its the same as making wild gestures and grunting. Primitive and inefficient. > > You know what. This is my last post in this thread. I communicated with Finn and we cleared that up. I really don’t want to get into a match with a zealot on a mission. I admited I was wrong, I was ignorant and some of that was cleared up, sure. However, no amount of armwaving is going to make me accept **that** doctrine. So I guess in this regard, I am exactly as immune to discussion as you are. So an impasse. Back out if you want, but we **agree** that my use of Zygote is almost certainly ineffective communication. That was my point–that you were caricaturing the descriptivist position. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/149 "2005-09-21T01:46:07Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Especially for instance in the sentence “Keep your eyes on the board.” > > Does that mean that: > > A) The student is being punished and has to get chalk dust in his eyes? > B) Sit in your desk, do not talk, do not look away, do not daydream, pay attention? > C) There is a board of wood. Make sure every time you write the letter I, it is on the board? > > Of course, A) is ludicrous. But the use of “keep your eyes on the board” as a possible intensive means that sentence could mean either B) or C). > > They… they… they’re idiomatic phrases! Run away! Run away! No, they’re…they’re…puns, in your instance. Sure, there are random instances of multiple meanings of words, and in your example above, I would actually agree that to a degree the multiple meanings of I _can_ impede communications, but is not worth it this late in the linguistic development of our language to change. As a more extreme example, words that can mean _completely the opposite_ of themselves, for instance, “cleave” and “biannual”, **are** less effective at communication than some idealized language. When an idiomatic phrase can be used to mean completely the opposite of its original means, and both meanings are extant, it creates the potential for ineffective communication. Note that I didn’t even go so far as to say that this choice of suboptimal communication was _wrong_: sometimes the intent is precisely to obscure the meaning. However, that doesn’t stop me from denying that linguistic evolution inevitably improves communications, not even amongst the participants in the changes. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/150 "2005-09-21T03:44:36Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. How dare you? My mother was a _saint!_ ---
**Author:** ![CanvasShoes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/74df32/32.png) [@CanvasShoes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CanvasShoes)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/151 "2005-09-21T06:30:01Z")
> [@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. AMEN…and furthermore… Grapefruit pricks Zebra, on the dew line. Hey! language has evolved, EVERYONE knows what grapefruits, pricks and zebras means now. And not only that, hel wye even, bothur speel it krectly, sense Everwon nos wot it meens?. ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/152 "2005-09-21T09:52:31Z")
> [@rayh](#): > > Here is what [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) says about [literally.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literally) > > So it apprears that the OP was mistaken, and that it is a perfectly valid use of the word. I see this a lot. I am not a dictionary expert, but I am fairly certain that a dictionary is not a set of rules to follow, but instead of reflection or log, if you will, of popular use. For example, 20 years ago, the pronunciation of “often” was “offen” but if you look it up now, most dictionaries will offer both options for pronunciation. So when someone says, “But I looked it up and the dictionary says it’s ok to say use it this way” doesn’t mean that a long-held rule isn’t being broken. It simply means that it’s been broken so many times that it’s become common usage. It’s “evolved” and I use that term very, VERY loosely. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/153 "2005-09-21T09:59:59Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > (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.) Yes, but if that’s what he **meant** then that’s what he should have said. To me, if you can’t hold it in your hand, it isn’t a handful. I always giggle to myself when I hear people use it otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Large\_Marge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/50afbb/32.png) [@Large\_Marge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Large_Marge)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/154 "2005-09-21T10:13:53Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Actually, it does. What those copyeditors and such are talking about it **not** the ultimate grammaticality of a statement, but whether or not it sounds right to them based in whatever dialect they’re using. In other words, the gramaticality of a statement is determined and re-determined by informants based on their native dialect/language. Or to put a finer point on it, the editors and teachers and such are stating the relative grammaticality of a statement. As an editor, I can tell you that we don’t edit based on “what sounds right” because often, it’s wrong. We do follow the rules of grammar, spelling, etc., in addition to our local style exceptions. Flow is important, but secondary to the rules of English. If it is grammatically correct but still sounds wrong, we will rewrite it. Or were you speaking in the much broader sense of time and the evolution of language? ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/155 "2005-09-21T10:30:58Z")
> [@Large Marge](#): > > I see this a lot. > > I am not a dictionary expert, but I am fairly certain that a dictionary is not a set of rules to follow, but instead of reflection or log, if you will, of popular use. > > For example, 20 years ago, the pronunciation of “often” was “offen” but if you look it up now, most dictionaries will offer both options for pronunciation. > > So when someone says, “But I looked it up and the dictionary says it’s ok to say use it this way” doesn’t mean that a long-held rule isn’t being broken. It simply means that it’s been broken so many times that it’s become common usage. It’s “evolved” and I use that term very, VERY loosely. 😉 And how long after it becomes popular usage does it become a rule? 20 years? 100? That is all grammar is, the rules of popular usage. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/156 "2005-09-21T10:53:40Z")
> [@Large Marge](#): > > As an editor, I can tell you that we don’t edit based on “what sounds right” because often, it’s wrong. We do follow the rules of grammar, spelling, etc., in addition to our local style exceptions. Flow is important, but secondary to the rules of English. If it is grammatically correct but still sounds wrong, we will rewrite it. > > Or were you speaking in the much broader sense of time and the evolution of language? Copyediting grammar and linguistic grammar are not the same. ---
**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 21, 2005, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/157 "2005-09-21T11:56:31Z")
> [@Large Marge](#): > > So when someone says, “But I looked it up and the dictionary says it’s ok to say use it this way” doesn’t mean that a long-held rule isn’t being broken. It simply means that it’s been broken so many times that it’s become common usage. It’s “evolved” and I use that term very, VERY loosely. 😉 It doesn’t mean that because every time anyone says anything, somebody’s long-held rule is being broken. For example, I’ve got a long-held rule: Everybody shut the fuck up! People break it all the time. Folks need to realize that rules get broken, and nobody’s harmed by the breaking of someone else’s rule. As long as you communicate effectively, you’re doing what you should. > [@cricetus](#): > > In the ongoing caveman analogy, I would have present-day primitives making their axes out of dried turds, and a different tribesman approach trying to explain that stone works better. The would-be craftsman shudders and dismisses the man with the stone. Your analogy breaks down, because in order for it to work, the turd-cavemen must be the equivalent of users of nonstandard language. A turd axe is demonstrably inferior at doing its job (cutting stuff) than an obsidian axe. Nonstandard language is demonstrably equal to doing its job (communicating concepts) compared to standard language. That’s where the linguists come in: they can study folks’ attempts to communicate, and the efficacy of their attempts. As long as two different styles of communication are equally effective, then it’s stupid to call one style “wrong.” **canvasshoes** , I want to thank you for your sparkling, original, and oh-so-cogent post. If only the exact same lame joke hadn’t been made and refuted several times already in this thread, I’d go into more detail. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/158 "2005-09-21T12:08:53Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Your analogy breaks down Actually, thanks to you, it holds up perfectly. ---
**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 21, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/159 "2005-09-21T12:13:37Z")
Nuh uh! Glad to see that we’ve reached such a sophisticated level of argument, **cricetus** –you don’t disappoint! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2005, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414/160 "2005-09-21T12:29:53Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Nuh uh! > > Glad to see that we’ve reached such a sophisticated level of argument, **cricetus** –you don’t disappoint! > Daniel Neither do you, “Daniel,” you smug, sophomoric prat. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-literally-blowing-a-gasket-over-the-word-literally/322414.md?page=9)