[QUOTE=BayleDomon]
Apart from what LHoD said, even should these constructions be used, sentences aren’t left in a vacuum. There will be context.
[/QUOTE]
There won’t always be context, and even when there is, it won’t necessarily be helpful.
And I mean that literally.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
There won’t always be context, and even when there is, it won’t necessarily be helpful.
And I mean that literally.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but I feel confident saying that such occurrences are so rare as to be negligible. Literally is used in conversation, not one-way missives. At the very worst, there will be a request to clarify a genuinely confusing sentence. The existence of a mere potential for ambiguity is not a reason to declare a usage bad.
Lastly, and this is what I love about language: should the speaker using literally find that they have to constantly rephrase what they said in order to clear up any confusion, they may opt to stop using it in their normal speech. If enough people opt to stop doing so, the alternate meaning of literally may well fall out of common usage. Conversely, if it’s strongly in use, that means the people who use like it and it doesn’t impede communication as much as some think it does. Such is the self-correcting nature of language.
[QUOTE=Giles]
Don’t forget covered in oil, ad wiuth heads cut off: the people packed like sardines have to be headless and covered in oil to complete the literal image.
[/QUOTE]
Well, they could be packed in water or tomato sauce.
The latter is a bit too graphic for my tastes, except that all of a sudden I feel such an appetite for sardines that I could eat a case of them.
Figuratively speaking.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
There won’t always be context, and even when there is, it won’t necessarily be helpful.
[/QUOTE]
How would there not be any context for any of those statements? Do people often start talking to you out of the blue about faulty wiring?
I do!
Well, actually, I say, “I’m literally angry with rage,” but I’m quoting the classics, so I think that makes it OK.
Hmm, reading this thread, I don’t see any problem with the use of literally as applied to a metaphor, though it is disturbing and wrong when applied to a simile.
“We were literally packed in like sardines” is an excellent example of a ‘doesn’t bother me’ phrase, and the reason is the word ‘like’. To be packed in “like” sardines means that you are not actually sardines, nor that you are oily and headless; it is specified that the manner of packing is the point of similarity, not the others. To be literally packed in like sardines means that the similarity implied by the metaphor is literal; in other words, that the people were literally pressed up against one another, as opposed to it having been only metaphorically sort-of-tight, but probably not actually abutting. At no point does the sentence mean that they were headless and oily; the sentence stating that would be “They were literally sardines,”, which is an entirely different beast.
…which leads us to similes, which are whole 'nother kettle of sardines. Take “Bob’s wife is so mad at him, he’s literally in the doghouse”. Please. Take it. Far away. In this case, the word ‘literally’ is its natural element, where it separates the hyperbole from the reality, and so the sentence as given can only mean that Bob is inside a residence normally devoted to a canine. Unless this is actually the case, then this sentence is abuse of the word, and persons who (repeatedly) misuse the word in this manner should be slapped with a trout, Monty Python style (and I mean that literally, though I don’t expect it to happen).
Now, injecting reality, I almost never use the word in conjunction with a simile. In my experience it’s usually heard in conjunction with metaphors, which is, in my infallible opinion, perfectly correct usage. Literally.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
…which leads us to similes, which are whole 'nother kettle of sardines. Take “Bob’s wife is so mad at him, he’s literally in the doghouse”. Please. Take it. Far away. In this case, the word ‘literally’ is its natural element, where it separates the hyperbole from the reality, and so the sentence as given can only mean that Bob is inside a residence normally devoted to a canine.
[/QUOTE]
You are simply incorrect. If the speaker intends it metaphorically, and the audience understands it metaphorically, then the sentence did what you are claiming is impossible for the sentence to do.
Some of y’all have weird mystical ideas about how language works, I think.
Daniel
Technical aside:
Similes are indicated by like or as, while metaphors are not. I think you have your terminology switched, begbert2.
[QUOTE=BayleDomon]
Technical aside:
Similes are indicated by like or as, while metaphors are not. I think you have your terminology switched, begbert2.
[/QUOTE]
Very possible; I’m a few years out from english class and it’s not like I come across the terms daily. It appears my mnem-memn-memory aid got mixed up.
And Left Hand of Dorkness, you misunderstand my entire intent. I am defending the metaph-er-simile application, while leaving the metaphor application to hang as a misuse of the term that is eroding its way into the language. “I am literally in the doghouse,” is abuse of the language that is becoming commonplace (though I myself haven’t heard it) but “We were literally packed in like sardines” is correct, was correct, and as such never deserved the attacks being levied against it.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
And Left Hand of Dorkness, you misunderstand my entire intent.
[/quote]
Given your clarification of your intent, I believe I understood you correctly–and I stand by calling your previos statement incorrect.
Language cannot be abused. It can be used with greater or lesser skill, but that use is judged by users of the language, not by some objective standard or by “authorities.” But language has no self-awareness, no capacity for pain and pleasure, no interests, no soul, and it cannot be abused.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
But language has no self-awareness, no capacity for pain and pleasure, no interests, no soul, and it cannot be abused.
[/QUOTE]
I think you may be taking him a little too literally… 
[QUOTE=BayleDomon]
I think you may be taking him a little too literally…
[/QUOTE]
Letter by letter, dude! 
It’s just that when folks talk about this subject, they tend to substitute anthropomorphic, sentimental imagery for rigorous thought. Or there’s always the person who thinks that posting something full of misspellings constitutes a clever rebuttal, or the poster who claims that I think all language is optional and that they can say “butter” when they mean “icicle” and I can’t fault them for doing so. The arguments are just so predictable.
Daniel
The meaning of “literally” has not changed!
When it’s used ironically (or metaphorically), it still means the same thing. It never means “figuratively!” What you’re upset with is that it’s lost its strength and significance. All the people using curse words when talking about “literally,” are, ironically, doing the same disservice to those words. You people are literally fucking up discourse. But I don’t actually mean you do it true, enormous harm.
It’s an interesting game that language plays. The meanings of strong words become weak, the meaning of weak words become strong. Worse, it varies from person to person. If you’re not careful, you’ll end up making real faux pas. Words that are light-hearted to you may sound real fightin-like to someone else. Worse, you might convey the wrong meaning without ever realizing what the other person thought you meant.
Does it suck that “literally,” which ought to be very strong and implying precision to the letter, ends up being used willy-nilly? Does it suck that “literally” gets used as a metaphor and not… well… literally?
It is unfortunate, but I don’t quite see how it could be escaped. If you win the battle over literally, you’ll still lose if for the million other words and phrases where it matters much more. For example, it’s a much bigger worry when the intensities of buzzwords shift around in the news or public discourse. That really severs understanding between audiences just a few years apart!
Would it matter to anyone that the use of the word “literally” for emphasis goes back at least as far as the late 1600’s?
From the link:
[QUOTE=Miller]
How would there not be any context for any of those statements? Do people often start talking to you out of the blue about faulty wiring?
[/QUOTE]
There could be any number of situations like that. What if somebody leaves you a brief note on your desk, for example? Or shoots off a quick e-mail? Or – heaven help us – a text message? The statements won’t always have any context that would help illuminate their intended meaning.
If someone literally has a rat’s nest in their server closet, you aren’t going to get an ambiguous note. Lighten up.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
There could be any number of situations like that. What if somebody leaves you a brief note on your desk, for example? Or shoots off a quick e-mail? Or – heaven help us – a text message? The statements won’t always have any context that would help illuminate their intended meaning.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know that it would necessarily be phrased exactly like that.
"BD,
The wiring in the network closet is literally a rat’s nest.
JT"
You’re right, it could be ambiguous, but realistically, there’s no information in that at all. I wouldn’t be thinking “Did he mean A or B?” but rather “…So what?” It’s possible, but unlikely. A more relevant note would probably be:
“The wiring in the network closet is literally a rat’s nest. Call the exterminator.”
or
“The wiring in the network closet is literally a rat’s nest. Straighten it up after lunch.”
Even then, I’m dubious that literally would be used at all. In a note/quick email/text, you’re aiming for conciseness, and adverbs don’t play well with brevity.
The point is that language simply isn’t used in a vacuum. Certainly, I’ll agree that some sentences are ambiguous shown by themselves. But realistically, there’s either going to be context or the ambiguity will be stripped out. If someone says or writes something that’s just too ambiguous to understand, then they’ve communicated poorly and the confusion is their fault, not any one word’s.
I do think literally’s alternate meaning has ‘limited’ usage; the only time it’s appropriate to use is during informal colloquial speech. It really shouldn’t be used in anything more formal or which requires precise wording, such as in writing where tone and subtext are vastly harder to express. It is imprecise, but not every word has to be in informal speech. It’s got what I suppose I would call flavor, gives you something to dump emphasis into, and provides a certain cadence that other intensifiers don’t necessarily have (very, really, seriously, totally, completely, extremely, etc. All sound different). It’s just another tool in the toolbox.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
There could be any number of situations like that.
[/QUOTE]
“Any number” includes zero. Given that nobody here has yet mentioned a single time in their own experience when situations like that occurred, I’m thinking the number of actual occurrences is close to zero.
Daniel
[QUOTE=BayleDomon]
I don’t know that it would necessarily be phrased exactly like that.
"BD,
The wiring in the network closet is literally a rat’s nest.
JT"
You’re right, it could be ambiguous, but realistically, there’s no information in that at all. I wouldn’t be thinking “Did he mean A or B?” but rather “…So what?” It’s possible, but unlikely. A more relevant note would probably be:
…
[/QUOTE]
<< Sigh >> Look, you’re stating that the note might not be phrased in that manner. I’m stating that it can be. Even if we grant that such situations would be rare (and I’m not willing to grant that assumption), the point remains that such statements don’t always come within a context that illuminates their intended meaning. Period.
[QUOTE=JThunder]
<< Sigh >> Look, you’re stating that the note might not be phrased in that manner. I’m stating that it can be. Even if we grant that such situations would be rare (and I’m not willing to grant that assumption), the point remains that such statements don’t always come within a context that illuminates their intended meaning. Period.
[/QUOTE]
If you’re not willing to grant that assumption, could you tell us about–forget my earlier request for three–a single time in your experience where this word led to such confusion?
I’m saying such cases are vanishingly rare. In all the hypothetical examples you’ve given us–examples that didn’t happen–the meaning seemed pretty clear to me, and I have real trouble imagining that someone would phrase somethign as you phrased it and mean it in a nonmetaphorical fashion. If you would, I submit that the error of communication is with you, inasmuch as I believe most people would interpret what you said nonmetaphorically, and you would therefore not be communicating effectively.
Daniel
[QUOTE=JThunder]
This is exactly why I don’t like an exclusively descriptivist approach to grammar. The common usage of a term doesn’t always make sense.
[/QUOTE]
Well, this is not really about the grammar, because people at least use the adverb in a syntactically correct way.
But when we talk of “making sense,” we’re not talking about some kind of binary switch. People make sense collaboratively. If someone says “We were literally packed in like sardines,” and you took it literally, shocked that people could have been placed in such a position, then you’re not living up to your end of the communication process. Or if someone says, “Nice set of wheels you’ve got there,” and you get a little miffed and think, “What about the rest of the car?”
Still, it’s a shame that we don’t really have a word that definitely conveys what “literally” once conveyed.