# "Physically" is the new "literally" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 30, 2007, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565 "2007-10-30T13:22:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/21 "2007-10-30T16:47:36Z")
[QUOTE=Interrobang!?] Curse you, **saoirse**! I physically pulled that link up on Google mere moments after you posted. Some of us do love our language myths. [/QUOTE] Me, too. When I first read it, I literally crapped my pants. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/22 "2007-10-30T16:52:34Z")
Claming that “literally” is descriptively clear just because famous authors used them is Argument from Authority. Not using the phrase “literally” figuratively makes for clearer communication no matter who uses it. Used properly, it can also be a device to communicate humor, but rarely used that way in its figurative sense. Now I am not faulting people for not prioritizing clean communications: I sometimes use “physically” figuratively, but rarely twice in the same conversation, since I catch myself. The overhead required to monitor everything you say would be less than the communication clarity lost by occasionally slipping up. But three times in a short conversation is hardly a minor slipup, but forgivable since “literally” no longer means “literally.” i.e. if you said “You literally have to click on the web link”, the recipient might still have a lingering doubt as to whether the process could be automated or not. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/23 "2007-10-30T17:00:27Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] Claming that “literally” is descriptively clear just because famous authors used them is Argument from Authority. [/QUOTE] I don’t think that’s the point. I think the point is that while literally-as-an-intensifier may not be the clearest use of the word, those that do make use of it aren’t necessarily “functional illiterates”. And it’s my opinion that clarity/unambiguity is not necessarily the only criterion by which the usefulness of a word should be judged. But that’s just my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/24 "2007-10-30T17:26:31Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] …if you said “You literally have to click on the web link”, the recipient might still have a lingering doubt as to whether the process could be automated or not. [/QUOTE] I’m still wondering how someone could get it wrong with no adverb in that sentence. “You have to click on the web link.” Seems obvious that I have to click on the weblink. I could see using “actually” if you were trying to be a passive-aggressive halfway smartass, but other than that I’d let the verb go unmodified. ---
**Author:** ![Interrobang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/interrobang/32/17463_2.png) [@Interrobang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Interrobang)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/25 "2007-10-30T18:03:45Z")
I fail to see how citing famous authors and a long history of usage is argument from authority, while citing part of a dictionary definition is not the same thing. This isn’t physics, it’s linguistics. Usage is what defines a word. Is using “literally” in a figurative sense _optimal_ in any given situation? Probably not. Is it normal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. Why? Because people have been doing it for hundreds of years. ---
**Author:** ![BubbaDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bubbadog/32/333_2.png) [@BubbaDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BubbaDog)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/26 "2007-10-30T18:23:57Z")
Quantitatively is a much better word ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/27 "2007-10-30T18:28:56Z")
I resist the general urge toward a literal hijack! This started with a rant on “physically,” and I will defend attempts to drag the thread off topic. (Even though I didn’t start it. Whatever.) > [@Interrobang!?](#): > > Is using “literally” in a figurative sense optimal in any given situation? Probably not. Is it normal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. Why? Because people have been doing it for hundreds of years. For my part, the objection to “physically” in its usual misapplied context has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness. I ask the simple question: _Does it **add** anything?_ Does removing the word from the sorts of sentences in which it is typically used alter the meaning of the statements in any material way? Or is it there solely to add to the number of syllables coming out of a given speaker’s mouth (or the word count in the user’s email) in order to puff up said individual’s importance? If the latter, I will call the individual on it, as I did above, and I won’t apologize. I am an advocate of simplicity and clarity, and I have declared pointless inflations like this to be a mortal enemy. Well, not mortal. I won’t stab you if you overuse “physically” in inappropriate contexts. But I reserve the right to think of you as a ninny. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/28 "2007-10-30T18:41:57Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] …I ask the simple question: _Does it **add** anything?_ Does removing the word from the sorts of sentences in which it is typically used alter the meaning of the statements in any material way? Or is it there solely to add to the number of syllables coming out of a given speaker’s mouth (or the word count in the user’s email) in order to puff up said individual’s importance? If the latter, I will call the individual on it, as I did above, and I won’t apologize. I am an advocate of simplicity and clarity, and I have declared pointless inflations like this to be a mortal enemy. Well, not mortal. I won’t stab you if you overuse “physically” in inappropriate contexts. But I reserve the right to think of you as a ninny. 🙂 [/QUOTE] I spent a lot of time on the phones, and I used to use empty syllables quite a bit. It gives the other person a chance to digest the meaningful word you’ve just given him before you throw another at him. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/29 "2007-10-30T18:43:32Z")
[QUOTE=saoirse] Would you honestly not understand the exact meaning of “We need to literally change the way we think?” People have been using “literally” to mean “figuratively” for years, and have always been able to figure out the difference. [/QUOTE] People have been misusing the word for years, true. In the example you cite, there’s no need for an adverb at all. Try: “We need to change the way we think.” The poor silly woman quoted in the OP was also using a superflous modifier. Simply take the word “physically” out of all the quoted sentences and they’re fine. Then have the woman spayed. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/30 "2007-10-30T18:54:38Z")
[QUOTE=tdn] Well then maybe you should have a paradigm shift and think outside the box. [/QUOTE] If you weren’t literally beyond my reach, I would HURT you for that. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/31 "2007-10-30T18:55:32Z")
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy] If you weren’t literally beyond my reach, I would HURT you for that. 😛 [/QUOTE] Would you hurt him _physically_? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/32 "2007-10-30T18:58:36Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] Would you hurt him _physically_? [/QUOTE] If I could actually? Really? Maybe just metaphorically. ---
**Author:** ![Interrobang](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/interrobang/32/17463_2.png) [@Interrobang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Interrobang)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/33 "2007-10-30T19:01:36Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] I ask the simple question: _Does it **add** anything?_ [/QUOTE] I ask the simple question: is casual conversation designed to be proofread? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/34 "2007-10-30T19:02:47Z")
[QUOTE=Interrobang!?] Is using “literally” in a figurative sense _optimal_ in any given situation? Probably not. Is it normal? Yes. Is it wrong? No. Why? Because people have been doing it for hundreds of years. [/QUOTE] Am I disagreeing with you on this? No. Except that is it my _opinion_ than in many situations nonoptimal usage should be avoided. When you’re hanging around your friends is one thing, but you have every right to be offended that people are wasting your time at the job or on a support line with superfluous and distracting language. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/35 "2007-10-30T20:01:09Z")
[QUOTE=Interrobang!?] I ask the simple question: is casual conversation designed to be proofread? [/QUOTE] Proofread? No. Mocked, though? Sure! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c37758/32.png) [@Wile\_E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/36 "2007-10-30T21:15:15Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] With the increasing abundance of IEDs and suicide bombers, my old favorite of “he literally blew up” doesn’t as clearly indicate a temper tantrum as it once did. “He _physically_ blew up” would be even _less_ clear, IMHO. 😃 [/QUOTE] Yeah, everyone knows the proper phrase is “he blowed up good!”. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/37 "2007-10-30T21:24:05Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] I ask the simple question: _Does it **add** anything?_ [/QUOTE] That’s the beauty of it! ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/38 "2007-10-30T21:27:27Z")
Oh Gawd… Close to this…I use the word ‘manually’ in my job where you have to use Excel or some spreadsheet to ‘manually’ do something rather than write some code and executing it. Am I going to hell? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/39 "2007-10-30T22:44:40Z")
I don’t think _physically_, _literally_, or _figuratively_ is the right term for the actions described in the OP. Actually or actively are better, but IMO the better term is **MANUALLY**. It means a thinking body needs to be at the computer reading the screen and controlling the mouse. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2007, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565/40 "2007-10-30T22:48:30Z")
[QUOTE=BlinkingDuck] Oh Gawd… Close to this…I use the word ‘manually’ in my job where you have to use Excel or some spreadsheet to ‘manually’ do something rather than write some code and executing it. Am I going to hell? [/QUOTE] I searched for the word “manually” in the thread before I posted, but I typoed in “manuallly”. So I didn’t see you beat me to it – I agree with your term. But see how easy it is to screw up when you do things mannuallly? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/physically-is-the-new-literally/424565.md?page=3)