"Literally" is not a plain emphatic adverb!

[Stratocaster]

From dictionary.com:

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 itself–if 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.

This sums up nicely why I agree with the OP. What we have here is an unusual example of a word, through misusage, transmogrifying unintentionally into its own antonym, while still maintaining its original meaning as well. The result is not a healthy change resulting from the evolution of a “living, breathing” language. Rather it is an imprecision that–literally–makes certain statements impossible to understand completely, even from context.

Use the example above, They had literally no help from the government on the project. What would you infer from this sentence given the dual definitions? Did “they” get some (but not much) help? Or did “they” get absolutely none at all? Accepting both definitions of “literal” means you often can’t be sure. Allowing for this outcome is not a great virtue in a word, IMO. I am shocked and appalled. Where are the language police when we need them?

[Liberal]

There are other words that have dual and opposite meanings, though. “Sanction” comes to mind.

[Stratocaster]

“Cleave” is another. I would suggest that any word that is its own antonym lacks a certain necessary precision. And words that become their own accepted antonyms through misusage (I’m not sure “cleave” or “sanction” are examples of that–I don’t know) are curious indeed.

[Early_Out]

Another word that’s acquired two completely contrary meanings is “table,” as a verb. In parliamentary procedure, to “table” a motion is to remove it from immediate consideration, to put it aside for the time being. Recently, however, I’ve heard any number of fairly intelligent people refer to “tabling” an idea, meaning that it’s being offered for immediate consideration, being put forward as a top priority discussion topic.

[Baldwin]

The word “moot” is another example. Used to mean “open to or intended for discussion; debatable.” Now it’s being used to mean “pointless to debate.”
“When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean!”

Humpty Dumpty

[Bosstone]

Use the example above, They had literally no help from the government on the project. What would you infer from this sentence given the dual definitions?

I would infer that the government wasn’t much help, whether only helping a little or at all. In casual conversation, it wouldn’t be necessary to distinguish; the important idea is that the project isn’t getting support from the government. Now, if it was a crucial difference between a little help or none at all, then either the speaker would likely use more precise wording or the listener would request clarification.

I think the main difference is that literally is used as emphasis in casual speech only, where the distinction is not necessary. When it does become necessary, people switch to a higher register and are more careful about what they say.

[mhendo]

From Fowler’s Modern English Usage (third ed.):

A word of this type, however, is liable to become weakened in sense, i.e. to be used in contexts where it does not exactly fit. Uses of this kind, displaying varying degrees of inexactness, have been recorded since at least the early 19C. The OED (1903) expressed it thus: “Now often improperly used to indicate that some conventional or hypothetical phrase is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense.”…It’s a case of “stop, look, and think” before using the word in any manner short of its exact sense.

p. 463

I agree with this, and with the OP.

[White_Lightning]

Wow, that was a superb post, Bob Cos. I was on the fence about this issue (notwithstanding Ferrous’ self-evident opinion), but you put it all in perspective. I also despise this usage. Your cite and subsequent analysis really clarified my opinion. Thank you.

[Stratocaster]

Glad you liked it. Serious issues like this deserve serious attention.

[The_Ryan]

I think that anyone who thinks that any misuse of the English language can be justified by the “changing language” excuse is an idiot. “Idiot” meaning, of course, anyone who doesn’t agree with me. What do you mean, that’s not the dictionary definition? English is an evolving language.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
Well, my point was - we have a nice word, literally, to mean exactly what it means, in that context. Now that it’s been perverted, we don’t.

Um, yes we do. I don’t know how you conceptualize reality, but a hyperbolic use of ‘literally’ and a so-called proper use of ‘literally’ are fairly easy to distinguish.

[3trew]

I am literally decimated by the moot of this thread.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**I think that anyone who thinks that any misuse of the English language can be justified by the “changing language” excuse is an idiot. “Idiot” meaning, of course, anyone who doesn’t agree with me. What do you mean, that’s not the dictionary definition? English is an evolving language. **

Oh YEAH, The Ryan, that’s a good one. Of course in the world in your head there is no distinction between one person using a word incorrectly and a popular concensus on informal use. After all, the English language isn’t as it is because we all agree on it, it is fucking hard-wired in our brains by our very DNA!

[Bosstone]

Cute, The Ryan. And by ‘cute’ I mean totally uncalled for.

I really don’t get what the vehemence is about. You all know what ‘literally’ can mean, and I’ll bet that if I gave a list of sentences, you could easily pick out which ones use the original meaning and which ones use the recent meaning. And for the sentences that are completely ambiguous by themselves, I’d also be willing to bet that either the meaning can be derived from the original context, just like 90% of English language, or the difference doesn’t matter.

Casual and dialectal speech takes liberties with the language. There’s nothing wrong with that. There is no ‘correct’ dialect, only ones that sound different. Valley speak may sound completely braindead to you with its seeming overuse of the word ‘like’, but I guarantee that it has its own rules and meanings, to the point where speakers of that dialect can pick out people who don’t know the dialect or are mocking it by their misuse of that dialect’s rules.

As I said before, in a post that everyone seemed to ignore, casual speech plays fast and loose, but when a speaker needs to be more precise, they switch to a higher register and use the language more intelligently (usually). I myself speak with a mishmash of drawling Southern and Californian speech styles when I’m just talking to friends or family, but I can easily become more precise and eloquent when I need to.

As for sneering at the concept that language does indeed change, I honestly boggle at this. It’s like fundamentalists sneering at evolutionary theory. There is a ton of evidence in favor of language change, most of which happens gradually, and is determined by popular opinion. You can’t say “I’m using ‘this’, but I really mean ‘that’,” because unless a large population agrees with you, it means jack squat–or that you’re simply being an obstinate arse. Take your pick.

'Literally’s use as emphasis has caught on to such a large degree that most people are aware of its new meaning, and can use it without feeling awkward (well, except for the obstinate people who think language doesn’t change, and remains in a pristine and pure condition). It may not be the best use of the word, I fully agree, and using its secondary meaning is not appropriate in certain situations, but that’s true of all words.

[Ferrous]

*Originally posted by erislover *
** I don’t know how you conceptualize reality, but a hyperbolic use of ‘literally’ and a so-called proper use of ‘literally’ are fairly easy to distinguish. **

Certainly it is. In the same way that it’s easy to distinguish whether a person is using his teflon-coated frying pan to cook an omelette or to hammer nails. For one job, it is eminently suited. For the other, it is badly suited, and will eventually be ruined by.
[sub]Bonus points for noticing the irony in this post.[/sub]

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by 2trew *
**I am literally decimated by the moot of this thread. **

Reduced by 1/10th?

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Um, yes we do. I don’t know how you conceptualize reality, but a hyperbolic use of ‘literally’ and a so-called proper use of ‘literally’ are fairly easy to distinguish. **

Well, you’re right, in 95% of cases, it’s easily distinguishable in context, but there’s often times where it’s very vague - and the vagueness wouldn’t exist if not for the improper usage.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by Ferrous *
**
[sub]Bonus points for noticing the irony in this post.[/sub] **

Ends in an adverb?

[Ferrous]

*Originally posted by SenorBeef *
**Ends in an adverb? **

Prepostition.

Let me see that Language Police badge again…

[mhendo]

Wow, was The Ryan’s post really as offensive as all that? I thought it was designed to be ironic, but maybe i just missed the point. It certainly didn’t seem to warrant the scorn heaped on it.

But i’ve been ducking in and out of this thread without reading everything. Maybe i just missed something.