# Literally means figuratively **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [August 2, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546 "2016-08-02T13:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2016, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/21 "2016-08-02T18:51:54Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That’s the way I keep hearing it used incorrectly. But even then, it’s almost always in the context of something that’s substantially whatever it is that’s being described. > > So I might hear someone say something like “Literally everyone in our section ducked, when that foul ball went screaming into the stands near third base.” They don’t mean that every single person ducked, which is what the first definition means, but that a very substantial proportion of the people in the section ducked. > > It’s a way of figuratively intensifying the sentence by using an absolute, rather than using phrasing with less intensity, like “Most people ducked” It’s more accurate, but in the context of talking about an event in a baseball game, it’s less evocative. > > It’s basically a sort of verbal embellishment, or at least that’s how i see it. Then you’re part of the problem. If I say “literally everyone in our section ducked” I don’t mean “most people in our section ducked”. It’s how I would communicate that every single person ducked. But now, thanks to people like you, when I say “literally everyone in our section ducked” listeners won’t know what I’m trying to communicate. Am I using the word correctly, in which case I mean everyone ducked? Or am I using the word sloppily as a pointless intensifier, in which case I might mean most people ducked. Or some people ducked. Or nobody ducked. Yes, I can see how this new usage has improved the language. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/22 "2016-08-02T19:02:16Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I think we discuss this quarterly. I will add my usual comment: > > If literally now means figuratively, we’re gonna need a new word that means literally. > mmm No, the word “literally” works well enough. If what follows “literally” is a hyperbolic statement, it is being used as an intensifier. If what follows “literally” is a play on an idiom or something that is plausible, it is being used in the literal sense. See: I am so hungry, I can literally eat a horse. (Intensifier) The lion was so hungry, he literally ate a horse. (Literal) He was literally glowing after reading the letter from his wife. (Intensifier.) He was literally glowing after falling into the vat of phosphorescent chemicals. (Literal.) I’ve never heard of anyone actually being confused by “literally” and how it is being used. Speaking of “actually”–that and “really” are used in the same way, when what follows is neither “actual” or “for real.” Why aren’t the pedants up in arms for those usages of the word? ---
**Author:** ![WOOKINPANUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wookinpanub/32/132_2.png) [@WOOKINPANUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WOOKINPANUB)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/23 "2016-08-02T19:15:41Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > \*\*I assume that when you say “quarterly”, you don’t mean it literally, but actually mean “once in a while”. \*\* Or maybe you mean four times a year. Who the hell knows what you mean! According to some, the English language is such a paragon of clarity that we hardly need words at all! We may as well abandon words like “literally” as having any defined meaning and just throw them overboard into the roiling cesspool of illiteracy. 😕 Really? The only context I ever see quarterly used is in business and it most definitely has a specific, invariable meaning. I get the whole “language changes” argument (sort of) but I guess I don’t quite grasp why, in a case such as this when the word in question _literally_ means the opposite of what the speaker is trying to convey. It’s not like it’s a complex word. So someone used it incorrectly once and no one else knew the correct definition and just followed suit? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/24 "2016-08-02T19:29:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If I say “literally everyone in our section ducked” I don’t mean “most people in our section ducked”. It’s how I would communicate that every single person ducked. That’s the trouble with ‘literally’. If you say “Everyone in our section ducked” I’d think maybe it wasn’t every single person because of the way ‘everyone’ is used commonly. But to then emphasize it with ‘literally’ when something else is meant increases the cloudiness. If it doesn’t mean literally in that case then what happens to ‘everyone’? It could have meant every single person, or maybe every person the speaker noticed, or someone didn’t duck but it’s hardly worth mentioning. So now you further qualify it with ‘literally’ and the odds are that means ‘figuratively’, is that fewer people ducking or more? ---
**Author:** ![Nuveena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a587f6/32.png) [@Nuveena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nuveena)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2016, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/25 "2016-08-02T19:31:32Z")
I find this example phrase in the article ironic: “My head literally exploded when I read Merriam-Webster, among others, is now sanctioning the use of literally to mean just the opposite," beause sanction is also a word that means it’s opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2016, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/26 "2016-08-02T19:53:52Z")
“Literally” originally meant that an event that’s usually an expression actually occurred. “It’s literally raining cats and dogs” meant cats and dogs are actually falling from the sky. The ignorant masses have since corrupted the word because they think it makes them sound intelligent. Stupid ignorant masses. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/27 "2016-08-02T20:28:03Z")
The marklar that argue in favor of this marklar are certainly marklar. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2016, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/28 "2016-08-02T22:36:26Z")
> [@Nuveena](#): > > I find this example phrase in the article ironic: > > “My head literally exploded when I read Merriam-Webster, among others, is now sanctioning the use of literally to mean just the opposite," > > beause sanction is also a word that means it’s opposite. And it’s is also a word that means its. Just ask my friend or I. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/29 "2016-08-03T03:23:47Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > “Literally” originally meant that an event that’s usually an expression actually occurred. “It’s literally raining cats and dogs” meant cats and dogs are actually falling from the sky. > > The ignorant masses have since corrupted the word because they think it makes them sound intelligent. Stupid ignorant masses. The progression went like this: \*“It’s raining.” “It’s raining!” “It’s raining!!!” “It’s raining a lot!!!” “It’s raining cats and dogs!!!” “It’s literally raining cats and dogs!!!” “It’s phantasmagorically raining cats and dogs!!!” “It’s super-phantasmagorically raining cats and dogs!!!” “It’s hyper-super-phantasmagorically raining cats and dogs!!!” “It’s hyper-super-phantasmagorically raining cats and dogs and cows and horses!!!” “It’s hyper-super-phantasmagorically raining cats and dogs and cows and horses and unicorns and dragons!!!”\* Finally, you get up out of your chair and look out a window. You observe that it is, indeed, raining outside. ---
**Author:** ![Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@Go\_Arachnid\_Laser\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Go_Arachnid_Laser_1)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/30 "2016-08-03T04:41:37Z")
> **[Great ape personhood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood)** > > Great ape personhood is a movement to extend personhood and some legal protections to the non-human members of the great ape family: chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. > Advocates include primatologists Jane Goodall and Dawn Prince-Hughes, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, philosophers Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer, and legal scholar Steven Wise. > On February 28, 2007, the parliament of the Balearic Islands, an autonomous community of Spain, passed the world's first legislation that w... Absolutely. Animals that are more intelligent should be given more rights than, say, a fly. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/31 "2016-08-03T14:24:08Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Flammable vs. Inflammable. > > Which catches fire first? What about [cleave?](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cleave) Do you cleave one thing into two, or two things into one? ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/32 "2016-08-03T14:44:03Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > So when do we start the campaign to make “figuratively” mean “literally”? I’ve already started. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/33 "2016-08-03T14:48:59Z")
The misuse of literally is not the same as words like cleave or sanction having two opposing meanings. That may be confusing but the words mean something in both their uses. Literally isn’t used like this. It has a correct meaning. And now it has a non-meaning. When somebody says something like _“It’s literally raining cats and dogs”_ then, assuming animals are not falling out of the sky, the word _literally_ has no meaning in this sentence. It was just added because the speaker wanted more syllables in their statement. _“It’s literally raining cats and dogs”_ has the same meaning as _“It’s phantasmagorically raining cats and dogs”_ or _“It’s multisyllabically raining cats and dogs”_ or _“It’s gastrostomatically raining cats and dogs”_. It’s just people randomly throwing a big word they don’t understand into a sentence. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/34 "2016-08-03T15:41:51Z")
> [@peedin](#): > > The dictionary is wrong. If people use “literally” to mean “figuratively” and the dictionary didn’t include that definition, _then_ the dictionary is wrong. The purpose of a dictionary is to record the definitions of words. Period. If you don’t like a definition, tough beans. You don’t get to dictate. The OED gives examples of “literally” being used as “figuratively” since 1769. It even says that this is one of the most common definitions of the word. They would not be doing their job if they left out one of the most common definitions of any word. What should they do? Put their fingers in their ears and say “nah, nah, nah I can’t hear you” when someone uses it that way? People get all huffy about this, but the usage has not caused anyone any trouble in communication in the past two centuries. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/35 "2016-08-03T15:53:33Z")
No, the “incorrect” use of “literally” is the same as its correct meaning, you, the listener, are just supposed to recognize that it is essentially a lie used for effect. In cases where it modifies what is already a lie used for effect it is just further intensifying the lie, but you are still expected to see through it. Example: “It’s raining cats and dogs” means it’s raining hard but not actually raining cats and dogs. “It’s literally raining cats and dogs” means it’s raining SO hard that the usual cats and dogs phrase is inadequate for conveying just how hard the rain is coming down, so the phrase is taken up a notch by exaggerating the lie by suggesting that it’s not a lie at all. However the listener is still expected to be intelligent enough to identify that this is still a lie. Note that in the cats and dogs example, the words “cats” and “dogs” still mean the small furry companion animals we like to keep as pets and “literally” still means “the following words are true” but we are expected to realise that all three words are part of an elaborate lie designed to let you know just how much rain is falling. I think it’s generally clear from context in what sense “literally” is being used. For example, if I were to say, “my head literally exploded”, I think you would agree that there would be some additional external cues that might indicate whether or not the statement was true. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/36 "2016-08-03T16:01:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Then you’re part of the problem. > > If I say “literally everyone in our section ducked” I don’t mean “most people in our section ducked”. It’s how I would communicate that every single person ducked. > > But now, thanks to people like you, when I say “literally everyone in our section ducked” listeners won’t know what I’m trying to communicate. Am I using the word correctly, in which case I mean everyone ducked? Or am I using the word sloppily as a pointless intensifier, in which case I might mean most people ducked. Or some people ducked. Or nobody ducked. > > Yes, I can see how this new usage has improved the language. Never said I use it, but merely that I understand the usage as described. It’s super-pedantic to get your underwear in a twist about this; it just doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. Clearly some people are using it in a metaphorical sense, and others are using it in a strictly factual sense. ---
**Author:** ![Lsura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Lsura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lsura)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/37 "2016-08-04T11:11:56Z")
I blame C[hris Traeger](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xjka07o1-0). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/38 "2016-08-04T11:14:50Z")
> [@Lsura](#): > > I blame C[hris Traeger](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xjka07o1-0). You know of course that it’s the other way around. This character was created with this trait because this usage had been noted for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Lsura](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Lsura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lsura)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/39 "2016-08-04T13:00:45Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > You know of course that it’s the other way around. This character was created with this trait because this usage had been noted for decades. Of course I know. I was making a lighthearted pop culture reference. ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2016, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546/40 "2016-08-04T13:26:03Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > We have a winner! This is one of my pet peeves, but we’ve gone around this a zillion times, and I just don’t have the energy to go in depth again. I have literally never found a use of “literally” in the wild where the meaning was unclear. It literally makes my head explode when people argue that it’s confusing. > [@pulykamell](#): > > No, the word “literally” works well enough. If what follows “literally” is a hyperbolic statement, it is being used as an intensifier. If what follows “literally” is a play on an idiom or something that is plausible, it is being used in the literal sense. See: > > I am so hungry, I can literally eat a horse. (Intensifier) > The lion was so hungry, he literally ate a horse. (Literal) > He was literally glowing after reading the letter from his wife. (Intensifier.) > He was literally glowing after falling into the vat of phosphorescent chemicals. (Literal.) > > I’ve never heard of anyone actually being confused by “literally” and how it is being used. Speaking of “actually”–that and “really” are used in the same way, when what follows is neither “actual” or “for real.” Why aren’t the pedants up in arms for those usages of the word? These are why you are one of my favoritest (also not a word! ;)) Dopers. Always so level-headed and reasonable. As always, this thread is literally the best. 😛 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literally-means-figuratively/761546.md?page=3)