Just because lots of people use it wrongiliferously doesn’t mean it ain’t being still not wronglish.
We’re still arguing about it so that ship hasn’t litarully sailed.
It really has, but keep fightin’ the good fight.
Dammit, you went the “I’ll make up stupid words, believing that’s biting satire instead of a complete missing of the point” instead of the Humpty Dumpty “glory” route. I forgot about that lame comeback. My bad.
Edit: My thanks to Ludovic, though, for pulling through!
Glory hole?
Hilarious. If physicists and mathematicians treated their field the way you think linguists should treat theirs, you’d have them demanding the only way to get 7 is by adding 2 and 5.
In English, I don’t believe there’s a single authoritative source (and let’s not get into to the myriad different national varieties of English), but I would suggest some of major media style guides (such as the BBC, Associated Press, etc) would probably be a good start in many cases.
If you’re suggesting that these are good guides for how to speak in a standard business environment, I absolutely agree.
But if you’re suggesting they indicate the “correct” way of speech regardless of environment, I disagree.
Truth is, I don’t use “literally” as an intensifier. This isn’t because I think there’s anything inherently wrong with doing so; I kinda enjoy it when someone does. But I see communication as a two-way street, and I consider myself successful as a communicator if my audience receives my intended message free of any unwanted baggage. The problem lies not with the use of “literally” as an intensifier, but rather with pedants and scolds who not only will get the message with a lot of unintended baggage, but who also will try to ensure that as many others as possible are inflicted with the same distracting connotations.
In my opinion it is the pedants, not the intensifier-users, who are hurting the language.
Try telling that to a major newspaper (sub) editor or broadcast news producer and see what happens. 
The problem is, as long as there are people (like myself) who think “literally” should not be an intensifier and instead retain its meaning of, well, “exactly what happened/what it means”, then those people are going to get “unwanted baggage” when people use literally as an intensifier (generally regarded as incorrect by the vast majority of English Language speakers).
Whereas I think there’s a middle ground. Not every evolving new meaning of a word is some sort of Communist plot to impurify our essences, but when a word which has a very, very long established history of inoffensively meaning something, then people have a right to object to that word’s meaning being arbitrarily changed without a very, very good reason. And I would suggest the circumstances surrounding “Literally”'s alternative meaning do not qualify.
But that doesn’t mean there’s any reason for the word “literally” to be in there instead.
This is a good example of what I mean. Saying “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse” or “My head exploded” works fine for hyperbole. There’s no good reason to use a word that actively contradicts what you mean.
Why would I do such a thing? That’s like arguing with a chef about whether an eggplant is really a fruit. I’m not talking conventions, I’m talking about how language actually works.
(But to play along, I said “regardless of environment,” and I meant it. Do you really think a broadcast news producer thinks that their style guide indicates the correct way to talk with a toddler, or to speak with someone who is mugging you, or to write bluegrass lyrics, or to speak to a lover?)
I don’t accept your second claim about the “vast majority.” Your first claim is certainly true, but I think the problem is people like yourself, not people who use it as an intensifier.
You have a right to do it, but it’s silly to do so, in my opinion, for two reasons. First, language doesn’t change according solely to logic; it changes according to the wild whims of culture, and that’s freakin’ awesome. Second, it reminds me of when I was a kid and I enjoyed punching the waves at the beach: I hope your objections are as satisfying as that was, because they’re about as effective as that was.
This really blows my mind. No reason? Look at the first sentence in this paragraph: is there any reason for “really” to be in that sentence?
Of course there is, and it’s not because my mind underwent spontaneous combustion: it’s because I wanted to emphasize the degree to which your comment is bewildering.
It serves precisely the same function as “literally.”
No, no, no, ships sail littorally (at least, the ones with really, really shallow drafts do).
Of course it’s an intensifier - but only when it’s used by people who consider every big word an intensifier. That was after all the whole point of my post - that some people just throw random words into a sentence without regard for their actual meaning. They seem to have the attitude that if they don’t know what a word means, its meaning is unimportant. And their poor vocabulary destroy the meanings of words: every word ends up meaning “whatever”. And those of us who want to use words in their correct meaning find they no longer work because the idiots have misused them. People like me can no longer use the word literally (or the word really for that matter) in their precise meaning because people have become used to hearing them used sloppily.
The term “7 feet” is inherently ambiguous, especially to the most educated of English speakers. Mathematically, it has only one significant figure, and thus represents an estimate of a man’s height if he were standing next to a pole known to be 10 feet high. This is why sports announcers give feet an inches when introducing players. “Literally” literally never clarified the meaning.
Literally may be “used as an intensive” (i.e. exaggeration):
[QUOTE=Literally - definition of literally by The Free Dictionary]
…
- Usage Problem
a. Really; actually: “There are people in the world who literally do not know how to boil water” (Craig Claiborne).
b. Used as an intensive before a figurative expression.
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 itselfif 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.
[/QUOTE]
Merriam-Webster’s own example for 2 is such an intensive:
[QUOTE=Merriam-Webster]
lit·er·al·ly adverb \ˈli-tə-rə-lē, ˈli-trə-lē, ˈli-tər-lē\
Definition of LITERALLY
1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
Usage Discussion of LITERALLY
Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.
[/QUOTE]
Summary: Hyperbole is hyperbole. Merriam-Webster misleads, and perhaps should hire people from TheFreeDictionary.com.
On a related note, which of these series shows “exponential growth”? :–
1000, 3000, 5000, 7000, 9000
1000, 1030, 1061, 1093, 1125
(Don’t get me started on hyperinflation. :smack: )
If someone said “I’m literally so hungry I could eat a horse,” then I would be honestly confused as to whether they would actually eat horsemeat if offered.
This is nonsense, and easily falsifiable. Do you find people using random big words as an intensifier? “My head malevolently exploded!” “My head antibiotic exploded!” “My head genuflection exploded!”
Of course not. Instead, you find people using “literally” in exactly the same way as its synonyms such as “truly” and “really.” They use it as an intensifier for hyperbole or idiom. Your suggestion–that this is coincidental, that the peculiar use of “literally” in the same way as its synonyms, a use it doesn’t share with other big words has nothing to do with its meaning–is ridiculous and dogmatic nonsense.
Dude, what’s with the pity party? There is no real-world example you or anyone else has been able to come up with in which anyone was actually confused about how someone actually used the word. Of course you can get on with your bad self using the word with its traditional meaning.
Really? I can’t imagine any native English speaker using that construction in anything but a hyperbolic/idiomatic manner. Were one try to convey your possible interpretation, it’d almost certainly be phrased as “I’m literally so hungry I could eat horse(meat)” by a native English speaker.
Because before they went and changed the meaning of the word it had a LOT of meaning–that’s the whole premise we’re arguing.
It still does have meaning. The meaning of the word has not changed. It means “in a literal manner.” But it can be used as part of a hyperbole. Why is this so difficult to understand? How is it any different than using “really” as an intensifier, which means “in actual fact,” when “really” is quite often used as an intensifier/hyperbole?
Literally still has a great deal of meaning for me and everyone I converse with. If it doesn’t with you, I think, at this point, that’s a personal problem.