What does the word 'literally' mean in metaphors and similes?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@BayleDomon

I realize that this has little to do with the main discussion, but there is a sarcastic use, as in “How very generous of you to withhold my Christmas bonus” meaning it wasn’t very generous at all.

I disagree, actually. In that sentence, the sarcastic weight is carried by “generous,” not by “very.” Consider the same sentence: “How generous of you to withhold my Christmas bonus.” That sentence is sarcastic; it’s just not intensely sarcastic :). “Very” seems to function as an intensifier all the time.

Which doesn’t undermine “literally”; it’s normal in English for a word to have more than one definition, and I’ll happily cleave to this quirk of the language.

Daniel

[Bosstone]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I disagree, actually. In that sentence, the sarcastic weight is carried by “generous,” not by “very.”

True, true. It was an attempt at being light-hearted.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I hate humor! :mad:

[sub]sorry[/sub]

Daniel

[Stratocaster]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

No help at all, of course. Do you really have any doubt? If they did receive help, then the speaker was either lying or misinformed. That’s not a context in which “literally” is used metaphorically, because there’s no metaphor involved.

No, the speaker assumed that “literally” supercharged the feeling behind his statement, despite any meaning the word might still desperately hold onto with its dying breath. You seem to think that there are people who use “literally” only as it was originally intended and also as an intensifier where that intensification creates no ambiguity. That has not been my experience. My impression is that people use the word “literally” because they like the sound it adds to the sentences they’re spitting out.

And yet Walter himself has given examples in which literally is used according to its original meaning, and any competent reader can tell what it means.

Only if they cling to an unambiguous meaning, one rendered tenuous by careless speakers all around us.

Yes, of course I doubt it, since the idea of using a word “incorrectly” when the audience understand the listener’s meaning is bizarre; it’s like saying someone was walking “incorrectly” when their pace managed to get them to their destination without incident. (I look forward to the first person that strays into talking about walking on highways as if that’s remotely relevant).

This is silly. Someone can craft a sentence where the subject and verb don’t agree in number, and we can all understand the thought behind this construction. That doesn’t make it proper English.

Your affection for this argument is amusing. Is it so hard to concede that this alternate meaning creates ambiguity, even if you feel the power it adds as an intensifier more than offsets this effect? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that a word that can simultaneously mean “literally” and “not actually literally” is, well, a bit ambiguous?

[Stratocaster]

@BayleDomon

I realize that this has little to do with the main discussion, but there is a sarcastic use, as in “How very generous of you to withhold my Christmas bonus” meaning it wasn’t very generous at all.

Well, sure. But sarcasm by definition assigns a contradictory meaning to any words spoken.

I don’t agree that both definitions of literally are exact antonyms, but since my argument has become repetitive, I’ll leave it at that.

Perhaps not exactly antonyms, but one definition means “literally” and the alternate means “something else, where that something cannot be inferred as ‘literally.’” Leaves something to be desired by way of precision, eh?