# Sometimes English really sucks **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 25, 2018, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802 "2018-05-25T15:39:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2018, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/81 "2018-05-29T23:11:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I’ll chime in here in support of **Little Nemo**. In general, I don’t have any problem with figurative use of language. That’s because it’s often clear from context anyway, but even in the case where it’s not clear, you can clear it up by using either the word “literally” or “figuratively”. A man who’s literally starving really might literally kill someone for a pizza, and if that’s what I mean, I can say “he would literally kill for a pizza”. If I just say “He would kill for a pizza”, and it’s not clear, then the person to whom I’m talking can say “Literally?”. So as long as we keep that one word, we can be free to use all the entire rest of the language however we want. > > As long as we keep that one word. But once we lose “literally”, we can’t do that any more. What then? Communicate more clearly, that’s what. First, don’t use “literally” when there’s any question about its meaning. Literally nobody does. I’m fucking with you there. Second, if someone does, on those vanishingly rare occasions, ask for clarification. Third, if someone tells you Joe would kill for a pizza, and you ask, “Literally?” and they think you mean, “Would you like to add an intensifier to that claim?” then they’re an idiot. Nobody would think that’s the question you were asking. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/82 "2018-05-30T03:01:47Z")
> [@WOOKINPANUB](#): > > Literally in place of figuratively \*literally \*makes me want to slap the speaker. Whenever I find myself using “literally” (which isn’t often) I always add “and yes, I do mean literally; I know how to use it properly” I have rather the opposite reaction. When someone complains about “literally” being used figuratively, I know immediately that I can discount anything they have to say about the subject of language. Doesn’t make me want to slap people, though. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/83 "2018-05-30T03:03:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If I say _“I would literally kill for a pizza”_ I might mean that I am willing to commit murder if that’s what it takes to get some pizza. Or it might mean, I want some pizza and I’m exaggerating my desire through hyperbole. How many times in history do you think someone has said, “I’d literally kill for a pizza,” and anyone around them genuinely wondered if they were about to commit a felony? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/84 "2018-05-30T06:19:04Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > It appears that the separation of the two words goes all the way back into old Latin. The two words come from Latin, but the confusion doesn’t. Latin: _capitalis_ (adjective; root _capita_, head). English: capital (adjective or noun). Latin: _capitolium_ (noun; root _capita_, head). English: capitol (noun). ---
**Author:** ![Celyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9dc877/32.png) [@Celyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celyn)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/85 "2018-05-30T07:26:30Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > For some reason, this makes me positively homicidal. “Sue is going to the party with Bob and I”. "The cat follows Steve and I all over the house! The object of the preposition is ME, goddammit!!! :mad::mad::mad: > > I get far less irritated with the opposite mistake such as, “Me and Sue went to the party together”. > > Both are equal grammatical crimes, but people who use I instead of me should get the death penalty. Literally. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![VictoryLap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9d8465/32.png) [@VictoryLap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VictoryLap)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/86 "2018-05-30T07:53:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We need to squash all these instances of incorrect language usage. Like, now? ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/87 "2018-05-30T16:01:01Z")
I just fall back on the best response to misuse of words: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” ---
**Author:** ![buddha\_david](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ee7513/32.png) [@buddha\_david](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddha_david)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/88 "2018-05-30T16:14:26Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > “Alternative” and the noun “alternate” have subtly different meanings. Oh my, yes. This one definitely gets under my craw. “Alternate” means substitute, or different. “Alternative” is a type of music. That’s it. Some bands will reissue a CD with bonus tracks, with some of their hit songs labeled “alternative version”. And yet, it’s the same mainstream style, and sounds nothing like R.E.M. or The Pixies. Aaaargh! ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/89 "2018-05-30T18:00:26Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > I just fall back on the best response to misuse of words: > > “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” It’s inconceivable that there could be a better response. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/90 "2018-05-30T19:07:13Z")
I’ll join in and point out that literally doesn’t mean figuratively, and its inclusion in the dictionary is wrong. It can be used as an intensifier when the literal meaning is obviously absurd, just like every other word in the English language. When it is not obvious, that is the error. And, even then, the correct response is to ask for clarification. And if any word does lose its meaning, another will pop up if that meaning is needed. Because that is how languages work. There is no need to police how a language develops. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/91 "2018-05-30T19:17:55Z")
Dictionaries report, they don’t prescribe (or proscribe) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/92 "2018-05-30T19:39:48Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Read the underlined portion. He’s saying it’s figurative **because it doesn’t involve starving letter-by-letter**. That is, the literal meaning of literal involves its meaning letter by letter. > > I’m not sure what I think of what McWhorter’s doing here–he seems to be exaggerating his opponents’ literalmindedness for effect, and I don’t think that’s particularly generous of him–but he does not, as near as I can tell, suggest that “literally” in the passage is meant in any sense except “in reality.” He just appears to be claiming that the “in reality” usage is itself figurative, since it doesn’t involve letters. > What’s incomprehensible–logically incoherent, even–is claiming that the utterance of a set of phonemes can communicate the speaker’s meaning effectively to the audience, and still be “incorrect.” That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what language IS. > > You also may be unclear on what an intensifier is; you would also do well to read the link I offered earlier, in which myriad excellent writers use “literally” as an intensifier. I literally endorse this post. And that viewpoint is not very unique. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/93 "2018-05-30T21:10:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Read the underlined portion. He’s saying it’s figurative **because it doesn’t involve starving letter-by-letter**. That is, the literal meaning of literal involves its meaning letter by letter. > > I’m not sure what I think of what McWhorter’s doing here–he seems to be exaggerating his opponents’ literalmindedness for effect, and I don’t think that’s particularly generous of him–but he does not, as near as I can tell, suggest that “literally” in the passage is meant in any sense except “in reality.” He just appears to be claiming that the “in reality” usage is itself figurative, since it doesn’t involve letters. > What’s incomprehensible–logically incoherent, even–is claiming that the utterance of a set of phonemes can communicate the speaker’s meaning effectively to the audience, and still be “incorrect.” That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what language IS. > > You also may be unclear on what an intensifier is; you would also do well to read the link I offered earlier, in which myriad excellent writers use “literally” as an intensifier. This doesn’t show that every misuse of “literally” can be written off as an intensifier. In particular, “literally” can’t be used to intensify a metaphor or other statement that could admit a non-literal interpretation. If I say “I literally kicked the bucket”, it can’t mean “I’m way more dead than you might expect”. There are places where non-literal “literally” is flat wrong, the excellent writers didn’t use it in those ways, and you’re over-generalizing to defend things the excellent writers would never have defended, let alone written. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/94 "2018-05-30T21:26:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Communicate more clearly, that’s what. First, don’t use “literally” when there’s any question about its meaning. I want to communicate more clearly. And I’m doing my part by using words correctly. If everyone did so, there would be no ambiguity in their meaning. The problem is people like you who use those words incorrectly. You introduce ambiguity into the meaning of words when you do this. Then when I use those words, people no longer know what their meaning is because of your incorrect usage. Don’t complain about how a word doesn’t have a clear meaning when you’re the one who made it unclear. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2018, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/95 "2018-05-30T22:24:03Z")
> [@DavidwithanR](#): > > This doesn’t show that every misuse of “literally” can be written off as an intensifier. Again: this idea is incoherent. If you’re using “literally” in a way that communicates a meaning, it’s not a misuse. The only word being misused above is “misuse,” in your quote. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The problem is people like you Snerk. Okey dokey. ---
**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:** [May 31, 2018, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/96 "2018-05-31T02:09:26Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I’ll join in and point out that literally doesn’t mean figuratively, and its inclusion in the dictionary is wrong. It can be used as an intensifier when the literal meaning is obviously absurd, just like every other word in the English language. When it is not obvious, that is the error. And, even then, the correct response is to ask for clarification. So when you are saying or writing something that would normally be obviously absurd but you want to express that in this particular case it’s not absurd and is a factual description of what happened, how would you do it in a concise manner that removes any possibility of ambiguity? I can’t help but think it would be handy if we had a word for that. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2018, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/97 "2018-05-31T02:43:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So when you are saying or writing something that would normally be obviously absurd but you want to express that in this particular case it’s not absurd and is a factual description of what happened, how would you do it in a concise manner that removes any possibility of ambiguity? > > I can’t help but think it would be handy if we had a word for that. I have literally never had this be a problem in my life, not once. Nor, I wager, have you. Nor will anyone who is treating the thread with forthrightness have any difficulty ascertaining which usage of “literally” I’ve engaged in, above. (Some folks, eager to score points, might pretend to be confused–but nobody will be confused for real). As always in this thread, nobody has come up with any real-world example in which there’s confusion about what “literally” means. Even the Hume example, above, doesn’t actually confuse anybody: rather, McWhorter’s joke about its meaning of “letter by letter” confused **wolfpup**. But that was confusion in the commentary, not in the original. ---
**Author:** ![Celyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9dc877/32.png) [@Celyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celyn)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2018, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/98 "2018-05-31T03:31:51Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > Oh my, yes. This one definitely gets under my craw. > > “Alternate” means substitute, or different. “Alternative” is a type of music. That’s it. > > Some bands will reissue a CD with bonus tracks, with some of their hit songs labeled “alternative version”. And yet, it’s the same mainstream style, and sounds nothing like R.E.M. or The Pixies. Aaaargh! I’m unsure whether you are having a joke here or extracting the Michael,\* but I disagree about those meanings. “Meetings will be held every Wednesday evening, alternating between Building x and Building Y”. “We should probably do A, but if we cannot then the only alternative is B”. However, this _might_ be one of those examples of the UK and the USA being divided by a common language. \*not literally. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/99 "2018-06-01T00:09:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Read the underlined portion. He’s saying it’s figurative **because it doesn’t involve starving letter-by-letter**. That is, the literal meaning of literal involves its meaning letter by letter. > > I’m not sure what I think of what McWhorter’s doing here–he seems to be exaggerating his opponents’ literalmindedness for effect, and I don’t think that’s particularly generous of him–but he does not, as near as I can tell, suggest that “literally” in the passage is meant in any sense except “in reality.” He just appears to be claiming that the “in reality” usage is itself figurative, since it doesn’t involve letters. I think “exaggerating his opponents’ literalmindedness for effect” is far too kind a description. His characterization is, in fact, flat-out wrong. One can, in any reasonable interpretation, and barring interpretations that stretch technical definitions far beyond the breaking point, very reasonably conclude that “dying literally of hunger” fully meets the definition of “verbally exact, according to the letter of verbal expression” (although relying on very precise definitions, even when doing so correctly, seems like a strange thing for a descriptivist like McWhorter to be doing). One could equally believe, as I said much earlier, that the expression is purely figurative and that Otway was just constantly poor and underfed. Such are the perils of letting careless ambiguity slip into the language. The point I make repeatedly is that all attempts to justify such usage are deeply flawed, and this is an example of rationalization that stretches logic to an extreme that’s downright comical, as you yourself I think grudgingly acknowledge. We have the same problem with “sanctioned”. And the expression “begs the question” is now facing the same unfortunate fate. So many people mistakenly use it to mean “raises the question” that this is now an understood second meaning, and many writers are reluctant to use it in the proper sense for fear of being misunderstood. The utility of the idiom has effectively been lost. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You also may be unclear on what an intensifier is; you would also do well to read the link I offered earlier, in which myriad excellent writers use “literally” as an intensifier. No, I’m quite clear. Good writers don’t use the word even remotely in the same sense that bad writers and speakers do when they misuse the word. This is a significant point that I expand on below. > [@DavidwithanR](#): > > This doesn’t show that every misuse of “literally” can be written off as an intensifier. In particular, “literally” can’t be used to intensify a metaphor or other statement that could admit a non-literal interpretation. If I say “I literally kicked the bucket”, it can’t mean “I’m way more dead than you might expect”. There are places where non-literal “literally” is flat wrong, **the excellent writers didn’t use it in those ways, and you’re over-generalizing to defend things the excellent writers would never have defended, let alone written**. Emphasis mine, and I emphatically agree. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If you’re using “literally” in a way that communicates a meaning, it’s not a misuse. Right, and the misuses are precisely those that don’t communicate a meaning. Here I want to contrast the way that good writers have used “literally” in an apparently figurative way as an intensifier from the kinds of sloppy usage that I vehemently object to. In support of this argument I’d urge the reader to look again at the [excellent article in the _Guardian_ on this subject](https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2012/jan/29/literally-a-much-misused-word). The author is a young PhD student in English at Cambridge whose first book was recently published to considerable acclaim, and I think he has some really thoughtful observations. From that article and some of the other material cited in this thread, here are some of the examples of good writing that some would use as rationalizations for the figurative use of “literally”: James Joyce: _“Lily, the caretaker’s daughter, was literally run off her feet”_ Francis Brooke: _“He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies.”_ William Makepeace Thackeray: _“The wretch did not make a single remark during dinner … whereas I literally blazed with wit.”_ Saul Bellow: _“The earth is literally a mirror of thoughts. Objects themselves are embodied thoughts.”_ One’s immediate first impression is how startlingly well aligned the metaphor is with the reality being described. A cogent analysis of what’s happening here is that the writers are using carefully constructed metaphors, or laying the groundwork for one, to create evocative and richly expressive imagery. They are using poetic imagery to describe how one thing is so very like another that we are left with a vivid mental image that could be created in no other way. I would even restate my objection about “literally”, an objection that remains visceral, to say that the problem is not specifically its figurative use, but its generalized figurative use by bad writers and speakers as an all-purpose intensifier that robs it of all meaning and demeans its use as either a metaphor or the declaration of the absence of one. For instance the expression that’s popped up before in these discussions: “My head literally exploded”. WTF does this mean? That, metaphorically, this person felt _ **exactly** _ as if someone had drilled a hole in his head, inserted a stick of dynamite, and ignited it? Or Jamie Redknapp, the ex English footballer turned commentator: “he had to cut back inside on to his left, because he literally hasn’t got a right foot”. What does this mean? So we dismiss the possibility that an English football player literally lacks a right foot and take this to be metaphorical, and this leaves us with what? That this particular major-league professional plays just as if he was missing a right foot? You can call it hyperbole if you want. I just call it bad writing. It’s meaningless and conveys no real information or emotion or evocative imagery. This is not a subtle distinction from what good writers have done with the word, which is evocative and often beautiful. And this is why we have rules of usage, and rules of grammar, and general guidelines of style, and why good writers can bend them to beautiful effect, and bad writers can’t. One can acknowledge that there’s nothing necessarily wrong with using “literally” in a figurative sense if one knows what one is doing. This is true in the same way that one might say there’s nothing _ **necessarily** _ wrong with driving 150 mph. A skilled driver with a suitably engineered vehicle on a racetrack can manage it just fine. For the rest of us, there are rules, and we’d be well advised to stick to them, or we risk getting ourselves into literal and figurative wrecks, or at least we risk annoying readers and making fools of ourselves. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802/100 "2018-06-01T00:20:08Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > One could equally believe, as I said much earlier, that the expression is purely figurative and that Otway was just constantly poor and underfed. 😕 No, one couldn’t. First, the placement of the adverb “literally” modifies the adverbial phrase “of hunger.” It doesn’t modify “dying” except in the most tortured reading. Consider a similar phrase: “He was thinking almost of nothing else.” Would you say that meant he was almost thinking? No, it’s a bizarre and tortured construction to think that “literally” is meant to modify “dying.” Second, and more important, **the next sentence clarifies what happened**. This is a **terrible** example of the problems of literally, as all the problems are based on a misapprehension of basic English. > [@](#): > > For instance the expression that’s popped up before in these discussions: “My head literally exploded”. WTF does this mean? That, metaphorically, this person felt _ **exactly** _ as if someone had drilled a hole in his head, inserted a stick of dynamite, and ignited it? If you genuinely think it means that, the problem is on your end. Nearly everyone fluent in English understands that sentence to mean, “I was very surprised, upset, and angry.” Unless there’s some serious context around it to suggest a nonmetaphorical meaning, that is–and even then, the author would be engaging in wordplay. > [@](#): > > Or Jamie Redknapp, the ex English footballer turned commentator: “he had to cut back inside on to his left, because he literally hasn’t got a right foot”. What does this mean? Seriously? You don’t understand that? Are you familiar with the idiom “he has two left feet”? That’s what the author is saying, in a clever fashion. At least, that’s my guess. I’m not sure. But not because of the word “literally”–without that word, it’d be exactly as unclear. I’m not sure because I don’t know who he’s talking about or what the context is. Mirabile dictu, **context clarifies most everything**. > [@wolfpup](#): > > One can acknowledge that there’s nothing necessarily wrong with using “literally” in a figurative sense if one knows what one is doing. It is no more a figurative sense than the “really” in the sentence “I’ve really had it with this inane back-and-forth” is figurative. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sometimes-english-really-sucks/814802.md?page=6)