In other news, connotation now means denotation. Literaturely.
No you didn’t. You heard them use the word homogeneous, the more common construction of the word that’s more rarely spelled “homogenous.” This confused me too, since I was mostly familiar with “homogenized” milk, but to the extent that anyone’s correct, they’re more correct than you are.
As for complaining about “literally,” it’s a sure sign that you’re a pedant who isn’t terribly familiar with linguistics if you complain about the word. Folks who compare it to punctuation are even less familiar with how language works. A basic understanding of the science of language suffices to allay any doubts about using the word “literally” as an intensifier.
For realz. For example:
My head literally exploded when I heard about the suicide bomber who’s [sic] head asploded for realz. You would of loved it.
To you I offer the same challenge I offer every single time this lame complaint comes up: find a single real-world example of someone using the word “literally” in which:
- they’re not deliberately creating confusion; and
- the intended meaning of the word is unclear.
Nobody has yet been able to meet this challenge, and I doubt you’ll be able to meet it either.
Life is a beach, littorally.
The dictionary reflects how words are being used. It’s not the official arbiter of what stuff really means.
Then what is?
Me. Problem is, I ain’t telling.
Nothing. Inasmuch as there is any authoritative body on the meanings of any given english word, that power rests with the body of english speakers as a group. Lexicographers merely note the usage patterns already employed by the speakers. They follow behind sweeping up rather than charging forward, as it were.
Ah. I am glad a healthy discussion ensued. I hope this doesn’t make me a troll.
This is why it’s such a big pet peeve for me. Any other colloquialism, you can disambiguate by saying that you mean it literally. But when “literally” itself takes on an opposite meaning, that’s no longer possible, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
I can’t give you any exact quotes right now (though the next time I see one I’ll try to remember it for you). But I can certainly come up with plausible situations where it might come up. Just off the top of my head, based on a recent thread: “So-and-so has worn thousands of fancy dresses.” “Literally?” “Yeah”. Now, maybe so-and-so has been to a few formal dances every year of high school and college, and the “literally thousands” of fancy dresses is just a few dozen… Or maybe so-and-so is Vanna White, and has worn 5,700 different fancy dresses as of last March.
We can come up with situations we think are plausible all day, but if they’re not occurring in actual conversations, they’re not relevant.
People are not mindless programs sucking in words and spitting them back out willy-nilly. A construction that ends up impeding communication is revamped, refitted with a new meaning or dropped and replaced all without any sort of official effort. If having literally perform two different functions is too great a strain on english speakers, they will naturally find ways to clarify.
So you can hear spelling on the radio? You must have really good ears.
Just because a person prounounces two distinct lexical items the same doesn’t mean he doesn’t understand the difference. Americans all know the difference between “writer” and “rider” even though we pronounce them the same.
We do? The first vowel is different in my dialect.
See, it’s always bugged me when people try and ‘correct’ the use of literally when used as an intensifier. “You mean figuratively.”
No, because that would be dumb. That would be akin to saying “The ice cream was like a soft cloud. That last sentence used a simile.”
People use literally as hyperbole, and the failure of people to understand that is what drives me nuts. Literally.
In that particular conversation, let’s examine what the person who says “Literally” might mean, given the two different meanings:
- “And this isn’t an exaggeration?” This is the traditional meaning of the word “literally.”
- “Would you perhaps like to use a bit of hyperbole in your claim?” This is the questioned meaning of the word “literally.”
Are you in doubt as to which of these meanings the speaker intends?
Because I find that idea preposterous. It’s very possible for someone to say, “Is this a factual claim?” But it’s absurd for someone to say, “Would your claim be improved with some hyperbole?”
The standard meaning is the only one that makes any sense in that exchange.
Compare to the word “really.”
If I say, “Man, I’m gonna kick the ass of the next person who knocks at my door at 7 am.”
“Really?”
“Well, not really, but I might yell at them.”
Same idea: “really” means “literally” there.
And as a further note, the following quote is untrue.
There was a deluge of articles, blog posts and facebook screeds a month or so ago when people found out the google dictionary definition includes the hyperbolic meaning. My favorite reaction was from a particularly thickskulled redditor who upon being shown that the OED did, in fact, note the general intensifier meaning of literally, replied “Fuck the OED!” Apparently dictionaries only count as valid sources if they support your preconceived notions.
Alan Turing vs. a whole mess of code.
I agree with the OP. Uncromulant and loose butt-hole.
Oh good grief. I think we’ve had this conversation before. :smack: I’ll try to remember for the next time that word clunks on my ear drum.