Literally means figuratively

[Richard_Pearse]

Do you agree that in the phrase “it is raining cats and dogs”, cat means cat?

[Cugel]

Meh, just wait until people start saying “It was actually raining cats and dogs. Literally dogs everywhere”

[Inner_Stickler]

@Little_Nemo

As should be obvious, I strongly disagree. I find that the people who don’t understand why this matters are the ones who don’t understand language. Because they only have a vague understanding of the subject, they assume the subject itself is vague.

It’s like somebody who doesn’t understand physics thinking that an electron and an atom are pretty much the same thing. An actual physicist might come along and try to argue the point and explain what the difference is between the two. But the person would say “Ahh, you’re just nitpicking. They’re both too small to see so for all practical purposes they’re the same thing. The difference between them doesn’t matter to me so it must not be important.”

:smack:

There is no modern linguist who will argue that the general intensifier use of literally is wrong, due to ignorance or a mistake. You are very much on the opposite side of language as a science in this matter.

[x-ray_vision]

@Little_Nemo

Wait. Are saying that when somebody says “it’s literally raining cats and dogs” you think that they’re making a statement that actual cats and dogs are falling out of the sky?

You really thought that’s what he wrote? Really?

Because you’re the one saying the word has a meaning when used as an intensifier. So tell us what that meaning is.

I didn’t say that. I said it’s being used as an intensifier. Just as you did.

[EmilyG]

I literally always use the word “literally” literally.

My two favourite uses (mis-uses?) of the word “literally” that I’ve heard:

1. On the radio, someone said that a piano player “literally seduced his audience.”

2. A bartender talking to another bartender was mentioning a time when he was “literally shit-faced.”

[wolfpup]

@WOOKINPANUB

Really? The only context I ever see quarterly used is in business and it most definitely has a specific, invariable meaning.

Not, however, in the unusual sarcastic sense that the poster used it. If this became common practice then “quarterly” might indeed acquire a less precise meaning over time. I don’t seriously claim that this has happened. I make joke. Joke go “whoosh”.

@WOOKINPANUB

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?

As already suggested, I suspect the explanation for this bizarre usage is that the ordinary correct use of “literally” to distinguish between a common metaphor and an actual reality made the word appear to be simply an intensifier even though it was absolutely no such thing. It’s not hard to see how such a misconception could cause it to fall into misuse as an actual intensifier instead of a discriminator between metaphor and reality. “It is literally freezing outside” uses the semantics of language to express the fact that the temperature is below freezing, not just cold. But the pattern is the same as that of an intensifier and could be mistaken for such, leading the ignorant to then produce such gems as “I literally froze to death on the walk home.”

[WOOKINPANUB]

@wolfpup

Not, however, in the unusual sarcastic sense that the poster used it. If this became common practice then “quarterly” might indeed acquire a less precise meaning over time. I don’t seriously claim that this has happened. I make joke. Joke go “whoosh”.
As already suggested, I suspect the explanation for this bizarre usage is that the ordinary correct use of “literally” to distinguish between a common metaphor and an actual reality made the word appear to be simply an intensifier even though it was absolutely no such thing. It’s not hard to see how such a misconception could cause it to fall into misuse as an actual intensifier instead of a discriminator between metaphor and reality. “It is literally freezing outside” uses the semantics of language to express the fact that the temperature is below freezing, not just cold. But the pattern is the same as that of an intensifier and could be mistaken for such, leading the ignorant to then produce such gems as “I literally froze to death on the walk home.”

It certainly did:o

Thanks for the clarification. And nertz to the first numpty who uses it that way and started the annoying trend.

[Little_Nemo]

@Inner_Stickler

There is no modern linguist who will argue that the general intensifier use of literally is wrong, due to ignorance or a mistake. You are very much on the opposite side of language as a science in this matter.

I find that hard to believe. I think you may be misinterpreting what linguists are saying.

Linguists may acknowledge that this usage exists (something which no one, including myself, is denying). But I doubt any competent linguists regards this usage as a positive development.

[wolfpup]

@Inner_Stickler

:smack:

There is no modern linguist who will argue that the general intensifier use of literally is wrong, due to ignorance or a mistake. You are very much on the opposite side of language as a science in this matter.

That’s a meaningless comment, since linguistics as a science is empirical and objective. If some aspect of language is in common use, linguistics may interest itself in this empirical fact, but not in passing judgment on it. Science doesn’t have “sides” – it observes and reports. And no one denies that this usage of “literally” is quite widespread.

Whether one might personally regard such usage as stupid and regressive is a different matter. Linguists can be mercilessly critical of poor language usage in isolated instances, but as a group they tend to be diehard descriptivists and readily accepting of common usage as a fait accompli and even admiring of colloquialisms and dialects no matter how far removed from the norms of the mainstream language. I think it’s a little bit like studying some strange two-headed mutant fish – it’s scientifically interesting, the word “wrong” just doesn’t apply, but you definitely wouldn’t want to be one!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Little_Nemo

Because you’re the one saying the word has a meaning when used as an intensifier. So tell us what that meaning is.

Do you understand the purpose of intensifiers, or is your objection to all intensifiers?

Right here, you wrote, “I’m pretty sure Coma came out in the 70s.” What purpose does “pretty” serve in that sentence, if not to describe the beauty of your certainty?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Here, you write about a woman who “wore a crystal necklace and she totally lost some weight.” How am I to understand “totally” in that sentence?

[Little_Nemo]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Do you understand the purpose of intensifiers, or is your objection to all intensifiers?

Right here, you wrote, “I’m pretty sure Coma came out in the 70s.” What purpose does “pretty” serve in that sentence, if not to describe the beauty of your certainty?

No, I don’t object to all intensifiers. As you note, I use them myself.

But the example you gave isn’t one of those times. Pretty is not an intensifier in that sentence. It’s downtoning my surety not intensifying it. If I had written something like “I’m absolutely sure Coma came out in the 70s” that would have been the use of an intensifier.

[Little_Nemo]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Here, you write about a woman who “wore a crystal necklace and she totally lost some weight.” How am I to understand “totally” in that sentence?

That would be an example of irony.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Little_Nemo

No, I don’t object to all intensifiers. As you note, I use them myself.

Then what is your issue with understanding the meaning of “literally” when it’s used as an intensifier?

[Riemann]

@Little_Nemo

As should be obvious, I strongly disagree. I find that the people who don’t understand why this matters are the ones who don’t understand language. Because they only have a vague understanding of the subject, they assume the subject itself is vague.

It’s like somebody who doesn’t understand physics thinking that an electron and an atom are pretty much the same thing. An actual physicist might come along and try to argue the point and explain what the difference is between the two. But the person would say “Ahh, you’re just nitpicking. They’re both too small to see so for all practical purposes they’re the same thing. The difference between them doesn’t matter to me so it must not be important.”

Both linguistics and physics are sciences: they derive knowledge and understanding from evidence. Neither physicists nor linguists instruct the universe how to behave based on their personal subjective preferences for how they would like things to be, in part because both understand that this would be futile, and in part because this is not science.

A more apposite analogy would be that you are a “physicist” who advocates the elegant precision of Newtonian gravitation, and is screaming at the sky to tell Mercury how to precess correctly.