Uh, woops.
I meant preposition, I dunno what happened. Maybe my eyes wandered around the posting window and I saw ‘adverb’ in the thread title and absent mindedly wrote that. Who knows.
Right. And now I just noticed I spelled “preposition” wrong. Oh, the shame!
What say I just give you the bonus points and we forget the whole thing? 
Yeah, probably not, mhendo, but this is my field of study, darn it. Can’t let someone disparage it without a fight. 
Not that anyone really seems to be noticing my end of it, but hey.
I literally could care less about improper use of words.
Particularly when the end result is saying exactly the opposite of what is meant.
Read that twice and think about it. I mean exactly what I’m saying
**BayleDomon **, I noticed, and I understand your point. I understand that language changes, and it ought to, and that the reason to be against a particular convention shouldn’t solely be “But that’s different than it was before.” I even accept that words like “literally,” which become their own antonyms, are part of the mix.
But in my opinion–just IMO–a word that creates confusion because it simultaneously implies its own contradiction is a bad convention. If someone thinks it’s fine because the confusion is minimal, they’re entitled to that opinion. We are not arguing chemical reactions. I just happen to disagree.
I love language that is rich in nuance and capable of precision, and I realize that loving both means that sometimes particular conventions or rules will be at odds with one or both goals. In this case, I argue that a word that contradicts itself has crossed the “precision” line without adding anything particularly satisfying in the way of nuanced, complex expression.
When I hear people use “literally” this way, even when I am sure it is not the primary definition, it sounds ignorant and lazy. It is a meaningless intensifier, similar to the way some people use "fing" as an all-purpose adjective. It is literally a fing travesty, I tells ya! And so I just don’t like this usage, and I’d prefer it not be “accepted.” To the extent we collectively decide “accepted usage”–there, I’m on the record.
On this word YMMV, of course, and I concede your basic point.
That would be a great point if it were otherwise impossible to have ambiguous sentences in English.
Deal.
Jeez, it was just a joke. And I wasn’t saying that “language changes” is never an acceptable position, I was just saying that it isn’t some sort of trump card that automatically wins the debate. erislover, I don’t appreciate your putting words in my mouth. My point was that there must be some point at which misuse of the language is not justified by the “language changes” excuse. I think that this use of “literally” is such a case.
For one thing, look at the supposed “definition”:
Is that really how people use the word? To mean “in effect, virtually”? Take the example in the OP. Did the German invasion actually have the effect of a rug being pulled from beneath the French? After the invasion, were the French all lying on the ground as if they had been standing on a carpet, which had been pulled away? No, of course not.
And what of the other explanation of the word? That it is used as hyperbole? “Literally” is a binary state. It either is or is not literal. How can something be really literal?
The fact of the matter is that the word “literally” is used in one of two ways:
-
To signify that an expression that often is used figuratively is, in this case, being used literally.
-
With no clear meaning or rules; pretty much whatever the speaker wants it to mean, that’s what it means.
I don’t see what’s so radical about stating that one finds the first to be a more proper use. In one, it’s actually a word, with grammatical significance, and in the other it’s simply filler, like “like” or “umm” with no grammatical significance.
BayleDomon:
If we continue your evolution analogy, my problem is that when I see a cat with three legs, I say “Oh, look at that poor mutilated cat”. Other people say “What makes you think it’s a mutilated cat? Animals evolve, you know. Maybe it’s not a mutilated cat. Maybe it’s an unmutilated specimen of an animal that has evolved from a cat, and naturally has three legs”.
I look at “literally” in its nonstandard use, and I see it limping along, pathetically trying to walk like a normal word. And I don’t see how anyone could call it “evolved”. Figuratively speaking, of course.
Ferrous: actually, the fact that the preposition is at the end of your sentence is not quite so much a problem as that prepositions are suppose to link to words, and there is only one word that is linked to the word “by”. You didn’t so much put the word “by” at the end of the sentence as simply cut off the part of the sentence that followed it. That’s where the prohibition against ending sentences with prepositions is useful; although there are cases where one has a valid reason, there are many cases where a person writes an incomplete sentence, and probably would have realized as such has they stopped to examine why the sentence is ending in a preposition.
I apologize if I came off too harshly. Call it overzealousness?
The Ryan, I do have to take issue with the three-legged cat. I’d look at it more like the cat’s legs are perfectly fine, but its tail became prehensile. It now has a new definition, a new use. I can’t really say I agree with the notion that the primary use of the word has weakened; it’s simply gained a new way to be used. Perhaps every once in a while the cat will swing from the ceiling fan when it should be walking across the floor, but other than that it doesn’t hurt all that much.
Bob Cos, one of my main points through the thread has been that ‘literally’ is used as hyperbole in casual speech, where a lot of usage can come off as lazy. As long as a person is aware of when they can use lazy, casual speech and when they need to be more precise in their wording, I don’t see the harm.
That hasn’t been my experience, at least as far as I perceive the situations where people use “literally” to mean something other than “actually.”
For the most part, I don’t find that people understand the principal meaning of “literal” and choose to use it as hyperbole to describe a non-literal scenario. Rather, I find that people are using a word they’ve heard but don’t understand as a meaningless intensifier.
I’ve actually asked people I’m close to about this, after a couple of beers, and received replies along the lines of, “Oh? Is that what it’s supposed to mean?” (Yeah, I can be a real barrel of laughs.) The same people who say, “Man, one more week like last week will literally kill me” don’t usually also say, “Man, one more week like last week will actually kill me.” Because they understand “actually” and what it implies. I believe this is usually the case when “literally” is used–the person either isn’t thinking or doesn’t understand it. Hey, there are worse crimes.
Apparently your experience has been different.
The supposed definition? Is Merriam-Webster not a “real” dictionary? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Dear god, man. If I call you a fucking idiot, I do not suppose for a moment that you are actually having sex stupidly. And of course, ‘fucking’ is a binary state, one either is or is not fucking, am I right nudge nudge?..
It isn’t “really literal” as ‘literally’ is not reflexive.
I believe you will find more meaning in thinking of it as a hyperbolic intensifier, much like the use of ‘fucking’ as an adverb meaning—rougly—‘very’, which I’m sure you will also no doubt take exception to.
Hmm, interesting. Because that’s an example of hyperbolic use of “literally” that wouldn’t bother me. Assuming that the speaker understood the meaning, and was simply exaggerating.
The usage that jerks my chain is (for example) the sort that Boomer Esaison used to do all the time on Monday Night Football: “Man, Brett Farve literally threw a bullet…” That’s not exaggeration, that’s just misuse.
I think that Ferrous’ last point is fairly critical, actually. “Another week like that will literally kill me” is an exaggerated intensifier - what I personally understand by M-W’s meaning 2.
However, “The Germans literally pulled the rug from under the French” is not an intensifier at all! It doesn’t exaggerate the rug-pulling-underness of the situation. It just doesn’t make any sense. M-W’s second definition is, basically, “in effect”. I would argue that whereas one can turn the world upside-down in effect, one does not remove the rug or throw a bullet in effect. It’s a subtle - and arguable - difference. But for me it is the difference between it jarring on the ear and being reasonable use.
I would also concur that the vast majority of people using “literally” that I have come across have never actually considered the literal use of the word at all. They just use it because they like the sound of it.
pan
That was my point, though, that most often I don’t believe the user understands the meaning (present company in this thread excepted). I was using that phrase as an example of that misunderstanding, compared to a slightly altered version. I agree it is NOT an example of the most confusing use of “literally” (though, in a given situation, I suppose it could be).
Again, I think that’s my point: In some instances the “misuse” of “literally” leads to outright confusion; in some instances it adds nothing at all (as in your bullet example); and in most cases it is simply someone using a word improperly because they don’t understand it or aren’t thinking. In any of these cases it’s not a great tradition.
The acceptance of this usage, it seems to me, and without any real proof, is an attempt to provide some academic reason for the continued misapplication of the word, since it’s so widespread. Hyperbole, my ass. Most (but not all) of the people I hear using “literally” this way couldn’t spell hyperbole, much less try to use it for effect by turning around the definition of the word. kabbes put it nicely: “They just use it because they like the sound of it.”
Nope. I don’t like it. ::turns nose up and struts off, harrumphing::
I have nothing to add but an anecdote.
I had a voice mail from a coworker who said, “The resistors literally went through the roof.” I called him back and jokingly asked about the holes above him. He didn’t get it. I told him he said the resistors literally went through the rough. He still didn’t get it. I relayed this story to another coworker. He didn’t get my joke, either.
Hijack: Go ask your friends/family how many think a verbal contract is strictly an oral one. Go ask how many know the difference between compose and comprise.
Comprise and compose are certainly two words which seem to be headed to a duplicate meaning, almost becoming themselves their own opposites.
erislover, while swearing and personal abuse are allowed in the Pit, that hardly means that they are proper substitutes for a reasoned rebuttal.
BayleDomon
If a word can mean anything, then it means nothing.
But it isn’t even restricted to casual speech; even reporters and others who are paid to speak misuse it.
Let’s get it straight people, “literally” as an emphatic adverb is only to be used in a HUMOROUS context. Using it in a non-humorous context will make me literally chop your head off in a blind rage.
Gee, The Ryan, I didn’t realize you were so sensitive. My post stands.
Hijack:
Opening line of “The Dead” by James Joyce, which gets my vote for greatest short story in English:
“Lily, the caretaker’s daughter, was literally run off her feet.”
The point being that characters in the story are to be described in third person the way they would describe themselves in first person. Well, also that it’s a really big Christmas party that has the servants working really hard.
End of hijack; I was just surprised no one had mentioned that yet.
Maybe you’re not aware, but The Ryan has something of a … reputation on the SDMB. Mostly coherent and rational, but with just enough Justhink-style dogged impenetrability in his writing to be regularly and thoroughly infuriating. He disappeared for a while, and it appeared that he might have been gone for good. No such luck, unfortunately. In any event, I assume that people weren’t responding to that actual post, so much as what they anticipated his vaguely introduced point would likely turn into.
Now, regarding the OP:
It’s interesting, but I seem to be defying the normal pattern of righteousness as I age. The cliche is that the older one gets, the more one is set in one’s ways, and the more one resents the newfangled ways of doing things being explored by society — the “those damn kids” syndrome. I, by contrast, find myself more and more willing to entertain the possibility of my being wrong about things, and that new ideas are not a threat at all, but merely an expansion and evolution of possibility.
Yes, strictly speaking, using “literally” to mean “figuratively in a really strong way” is grammatically incorrect, and indeed self-contradictory. But isn’t that exactly the hallmark of good slang? Starting back in the late 80’s and early 90’s, hasn’t calling something “bad” been intended to mean it’s really really good?
Furthermore, as I pointed out in another thread recently, specifically on the subject of the expression “my bad,” a usage like this doesn’t catch on unless it serves a useful purpose in the language. In other words, if it were simply stupid and useless, it would have zero utility and zero penetration in the cultural argot. The really useful phrases and expressions that catch on and get widely spread capture concepts for which we didn’t know we lacked a term until we heard the proposal. “Couch potato,” for example. We all know what it means; we all recognized it instantly once the expression entered the language, and because it perfectly encapsulated its subject, it took off. “My bad,” I argued in the other thread, serves a similar function: It expresses a fairly complicated but universally familiar concept with remarkable economy, and therefore gets picked up and used widely.
Therefore, with respect to “literally,” I have to take a step back and think about the function the expression serves. It’s a “flavor” word — essentially devoid of specific meaning, but used to embed an otherwise ineffably emotional tone, an enthusiasm if you will, into the literal (heh) concept being expressed by the phrase or sentence. The language is littered with these; “hopefully,” for example, has absolutely no grammatical justification as it’s commonly employed (e.g., “Hopefully, the wings don’t fall off the airplane”), but the emotional concept it captures is obvious and clear to everybody who hears it. Likewise, to emphasize something as “the single largest <whatever>” is redundant; something is either the largest or it isn’t, and adding “single” increases the precision of the adjective not a whit. And yet, we all know what is meant by the usage, and thus it persists.
But still, to use “literally” as a synonym for “figuratively” is pretty much just plain wrong, and can, as shown above, add confusion to and muddle up one’s intended meaning. So given that, with what existing word or phrase is the “figurative ‘literally’” synonymous? If we decry that usage, and excise it from our language, how should we replace it?
Anyone?
Suggestions?
Hello?
I can’t think of a single existing expression that conveys precisely the same nuance as does the newly mutated “literally.” In a sense, it’s the same situation as with “my bad,” in that we didn’t know we were missing something useful until we heard it, upon which we seized enthusiastically upon it, grammar be damned. It’s a shame that it was a perfectly good word with a perfectly useful role until it was pressed into this alternate service, but that happens all the time in language.
Or, to look at it another way, to use “literally” as “an enthusiastic figuratively” is, indeed, wrong, and it will be until the day you die.
At which time it will mean something else.
And thus does the world continue spinning around the sun.