What’s this supposed to mean? We’re talking about “literally”. I find it a problem and I explained why. I don’t need to go find a hundred other endangered words to illustrate this.
shrug Appeals to authority don’t convince me; at least not a couple of isolated ones.
Nope, so can we dispense with that strawman?
I think perhaps you misunderstand the concept behind the Appeal to Authority fallacy:
Can you provide at least one of these examples you’re talking about? I’ve never encountered an ambiguous use of “literally” in the wild.
As my previous link points out, “literally” is a perfect word for describing doing something letter-by-letter. Using it to mean “actually” is a figurative use, and denies the speaker an adverb with which to describe how I’m teaching my low-IQ student to write his spelling words. Do language mavens not despair at this loss of precision in our language? Why not use words like “actually” and “really,” leaving “literally” to its beautifully precise meaning of “in a letter-by-letter fashion”?
Nor does he understand what a strawman is: a strawman cannot appear in a non-rhetorical question that’s asked to clarify a position.
Hear hear. Except that last part.
Or unless I bring up something.
I’d prefer not to dig up the GD thread because I remember it turning ugly for other reasons. I’ll give the more lighthearted one instead.
In a CS thread on “What real people have been the most inaccurately maligned on film?” I mentioned Richard Wagner in Lisztomania (post #55), saying “although Richard Wagner certainly had his faults, he wasn’t literally a blood-sucking Nazi” (emphasis in the original). A couple of posters responded by pointing out that Wagner was in fact anti-Semitic.
I knew that. Everyone who knows anything about Wagner knows that. But Lisztomania is a very odd movie, and it does not depict Wagner as simply an anti-Semite but rather as a Nazi AND a vampire. (He also builds a sort of Frankenstein monster at one point.) Now, I could have said “Wagner wasn’t a vampire in real life”, but since Wagner might figuratively be called “a blood-sucking Nazi” (as in “an evil anti-Semite”) I thought I’d make a little joke. No one got it but Sublight, who was also familiar with the movie. Not a big deal, but I was surprised that my intended meaning was missed – especially since I’d put “literally” in italics and added the remark about Cosima’s voodoo doll to emphasize that Lisztomania has supernatural elements.
*No, it isn’t. I have no problem with words being used figuratively anyway. It would be boring if they could not be. I just think it’s a shame that I apparently can’t expect to be understood if I use “literally” to mean “in a literal sense or manner: actually”. People will assume the word is only there for emphasis. As I said before, this is not an insurmountable barrier to effective communication, I just find it annoying.
If you don’t find it annoying then good for you. I’m not looking to change anyone’s mind here. I’m not even trying to stop people from using “literally” as an intensifier. I’m just explaining my opinion on the matter.
I just read that whole exchange, and I don’t think it was the word “literally” that caused the problem there: it’s that people didn’t realize you knew of Wagner’s anti-semitism. Had you said, “Although Wagner was horrifically anti-semitic, he wasn’t literally a blood-sucking Nazi,” I don’t think anything would’ve come of it. Not a single post suggests that people thought you were denying his figurative bloodsucking Nazihood.
As for literal=letter-by-letter, I don’t know why you think your cite to the dictionary helps: are you whooshed, perhaps?
Daniel
Alright, let me restate that just because James Fenimore Cooper and a few other authors also used “literally” to mean “figuratively” does not convince me that it’s worthy way to communicate. It only demonstrates that even famous people are prone to poor usage at times. James Fenimore Cooper? Honestly, people.
Claiming that the question was an innocent non-rhetorical question to clarify a position shows either dishonesty or willful obtuseness on your part, since I never said language in general was in state of decline, but specifically denied making such a claim.
If you mean you don’t think anyone would have “corrected” me then you’re probably right, but I don’t think the people who responded would have understood that I meant the movie fancifully depicted Wagner as a vampire who sometimes dressed in a Nazi uniform. Given the responses I got, I think they would have believed I meant something like “although Wagner was an anti-Semite, he wasn’t all that extreme.”
*Are you sure you read the thread? That’s exactly what people were suggesting.
Left Hand of Dorkness, before we go too far down the rabbit hole of nitpicking over the meaning of a four year old thread, may I ask what you are trying to accomplish here? Because if you are hoping that you are going to change my mind then you are wasting your time. I have known people to misunderstand how the word “literally” was being used, and I find the use of “literally” as an intensifier to be annoying. There is nothing you could say to change this. I am not going to be argued out of my personal experience or my opinions. I’m not looking to argue you out of yours, either. If you don’t share this particular pet peeve of mine then that’s lovely for you.
If you are simply curious as to why someone would dislike the use of “literally” as an intensifier then I believe I have already explained myself as best I can.
Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses, by Mark Twain
…
13. Use the right word, not its second cousin.
…
I was curious to see an instance in the wild of “literally” being used ambiguously. The example you provided did not appear ambiguous to me; the rest of your post kind of was. That’s all.
And Cosmic, if you want to interpret my question as obtuse, knock yourself out. It was asked honestly.
You’re not very good at being a language pedant, are you?
“Go too far”?
What am I, a villain in a Mighty Mouse cartoon?
This post from Language Log today seems particularly relevant: