Literally I am starting a thread on this.

Duggys Housemate

So a lot of people don't like the use of the word literally to mean "figuratively", but they are wrong. Literally is one of those words which changes, or reverses , meaning in context. There are others:dust, to remove, or add dust - (think forensic team or cleaner), sanction ( to allow, or disallow) etc.

In fact to use it "properly" is - to my mind worse, or redundant. I was literally walking down the street can easily be, I was walking down the street. Its of no use there.

Figuratively is not a useful word either, in fact, it is rarely used, and an ugly addition to all figurative language.

It is the East, but Juliet is not figuratively the Sun. Shakespeare's metaphor was figurative, he just didn't have to announce it.

One of the forms of figurative language is hyperbole and all these are equivalently figurative language ( and we can tell in context):

I walked a million miles.
Not a word of a lie, I walked a million miles.
Honestly, I walked a million miles.
Literally, I walked a million miles.

All of the additions in sentence 2-4 are intensifiers of the hyperbole. Literally is used in the opposite of it's standard meaning here, so is honestly, but in hyperbole you intensify the exaggeration by claiming it's truth, and literally is no more out of place than honestly ( meaning dishonestly), or Not a word of a lie ( meaning: this is a lie, or exaggeration ).

You can in all cases use all these words correctly to mean their opposite.

You need to exaggerate hugely, with hyperbole. Honestly I walked 2 miles means you did walk 2 miles, hyperbolic language works when the claims are too great to be honest ( i.e. a million when you walked two, rather than twenty when you walked two, since twenty is possible), and that is what changed the meaning of the words at the start of the sentence.

P. Breathnach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

So a lot of people don't like the use of the word literally to mean "figuratively", but they are wrong....

No, I'm not.

Because the misuse of literally is usually not done for stylistic effect, but because the person using the word hasn't a clue what it means - for example "I was laughing so much I literally wet my pants".

pickarooney

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, I'm not.

Because the misuse of literally is usually not done for stylistic effect, but because the person using the word hasn't a clue what it means - for example "I was laughing so much I literally wet my pants".

If you listen closely, they're actually saying 'literarily'.

Probably.

Kinski

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

In fact to use it "properly" is - to my mind worse, or redundant. I was literally walking down the street can easily be, I was walking down the street. Its of no use there.

It's not useless; literally can be used to avoid ambiguity when saying something that might otherwise be mistaken for a figure of speech: "I head there were problems on your last climbing trip?" "Yes, at one point I was literally hanging on for my life!"

Duggys Housemate

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No, I'm not.

Because the misuse of literally is usually not done for stylistic effect, but because the person using the word hasn't a clue what it means - for example "I was laughing so much I literally wet my pants".

I don't think you really read my post. Although there is some ambiguity on this one - because you can wet your pants ( in which case you can claim you literally did) - it's still correct as hyperbole if you didn't.

I literally died of laughter is correct, for instance. Or I literally jumped out of my skin.

P. Breathnach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I don't think you really read my post....

Yes I did. I just don't agree with you.

Duggys Housemate

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes I did. I just don't agree with you.

We would need a better explanation though, rather than your opinion that some people don't get it, and are using it incorrectly.

P. Breathnach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

We would need a better explanation though, rather than your opinion that some people don't get it, and are using it incorrectly.

Did you not read my post?

scotchy

Thanks OP. You literally took the words out of my mouth.

.


.

Duggys Housemate

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Did you not read my post?

yes, but you said that some people didn't get it. Then you produced a grammatically correct sentence to illustrate your point, making no reference to my post what so over.

I should say here that literally, used as an intensifier has a long pedigree (Dickens, Eliot and more), and has only fallen out of favour recently. Seems to be a class issue, as working class people use it more.

Duggys Housemate

scotchy wrote: »

Thanks OP. You literally took the words out of my mouth.

.


.

I hope you don't think that is incorrect?

FLOOPER

I don't know where to start with the op.

Languauge is confusing enough as it is. There are so many misunderstandings from misuse of language that it's just not funny. And I'm sorry but using straightforward language for irony will get you into a lot of trouble if used in the wrong forum . eg I literally sliced the head off him your honour but I didn't kill him.

I can understand its use somewhat in hyperbole but still sounds wrong. We've all heard the commentator saying about (I forget which player now) that he "literally has no left foot". Now that to me is a clear indication that the commentator had no idea of what literally meant. No question.

If you ask me both words should only be used to to clear up any ambiguity in a sentence.

That's my opinion anyway.

P. Breathnach

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

yes, but you said that some people didn't get it.

No, I didn't. In particular I never used the word "some"; I suggested that it was usual that people who misused the word hadn't a clue what it means.

Then you produced a grammatically correct sentence to illustrate your point

The fact that my sentence is grammatically correct is irrelevant: this is a question of correct usage, not of grammar.

making no reference to my post what so over.

I had already referenced your post, and said that I don't accept your position. What else need I do?

I should say here that literally, used as an intensifier has a long pedigree (Dickens, Eliot and more), and has only fallen out of favour recently. Seems to be a class issue, as working class people use it more.

A class issue? Wow.

Duggys Housemate

Sure it has to be a class issue, hence the pervious commentators football reference.

In all cases of hyperbole, the intensifier means the opposite of what it means in non-hyperbole.

you cannot take the words out of someone's mouth. So all of these are lies, by the standards of pedants.

He honestly took the words out of my mouth.
He really took the words out of my mouth.
He literally took the words out of my mouth.

But thats repeating the original post.

Enkidu

I guess it is possible that the word will undergo a shift in meaning due to this new idiom. From a purely linguistic point of view words expressing truth or factuality have often transmuted into intensifying particles for hyperbolic or false statement (this is the origin of very), not just in English but in the other Germanic languages.

hognef

I find it very difficult to agree with the OP here.

"I walked a million miles" is clearly an exaggeration.

With "I literally walked a million miles", on the other hand, the speaker is clarifying that he did in fact walk a million miles (incorrectly - as that's physically impossible, even over a lifetime). The clarification is needed because it would otherwise seem like an exaggeration.

Likewise, "I was laughing so much I literally wet my pants" means the speaker actually did wet their pants. If, in fact, they didn't, it's a lie - or they have no idea what "literally" means. I presume this is what P. Breathnach meant in his initial response to the OP.

saa

I was literally shiittin' myself.

It's the only non-awkward way of letting people know about your incontinence issue.

Duggys Housemate

hognef wrote: »

I find it very difficult to agree with the OP here.

"I walked a million miles" is clearly an exaggeration.

With "I literally walked a million miles", on the other hand, the speaker is clarifying that he did in fact walk a million miles (incorrectly - as that's physically impossible, even over a lifetime). The clarification is needed because it would otherwise seem like an exaggeration.

Likewise, "I was laughing so much I literally wet my pants" means the speaker actually did wet their pants. If, in fact, they didn't, it's a lie - or they have no idea what "literally" means. I presume this is what P. Breathnach meant in his initial response to the OP.

No, because walking a million miles is impossible the intensifier means the opposite of its normal meaning.

Let me rephrase your explanation using different words.

I could eat a horse is clearly an exaggeration.

With "I really could eat a horse", on the other hand, the speaker is clarifying that could eat a horse (incorrectly - as nobody can, not in one sitting).

But obviously that's correct usage. People use really all the time, in hyperbole, to mean not really.

Thats all that is happening here, happens to all intensifiers. What gets people so antagonistic about literally?

As I said I think it is a class issue. I don't use literally either way, its meaning or counter meaning. Its more a working class thing.

Then literally is the opposite of figuratively, which confuses the issue a bit. But you never use figuratively in those cases, the word is only use to refer to figurative language ( he wrote figuratively) not in the actual figure of speech itself.

P. Breathnach

Enkidu wrote: »

I guess it is possible that the word will undergo a shift in meaning due to this new idiom....

Agreed. But for now I am manning the barricades.

Duggys Housemate

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Agreed. But for now I am manning the barricades.

YOu would need a time machine to teach Dickens and Joyce their letters.

Rasmus

The usage of 'literally' these days is simply a product of language evolution. Dialect constantly changes.

The earlier usage of the word refers to something that is without exaggeration but common usage these days allows the term to supplement 'virtually' with 'literally'.

It's not such a big deal unless writing a report or something - really not a class issue, that is silly. Might as well blame someone for being born after 1900.

There are facebook groups for folks offended by such inaccuracies in speech.

hognef

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

No, because walking a million miles is impossible the intensifier means the opposite of its normal meaning.

So, if I were to accept that statement, then what do the following two sentences mean?

"I walked a hundred miles"
"I literally walked a hundred miles"

The first sentence still sounds like an exaggeration. Is the word "literally" in the second sentence therefore (1) still used to intensify that exaggeration?

Or does "literally" here clarify that (2) the speaker actually did walk a hundred miles (which is indeed possible, even though it might take a good while).

I would definitely go for option (2) - would you agree? If so, at what point does "literally" change from intensifying the exaggeration to clarifying that it is indeed not an exaggeration?

slowburner

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

What gets people so antagonistic about literally?

Me and my total best friend, Amie, we just get sooo like totally bored if we don't get to Dundrum at least like, twice a week. I mean we literally, just lie down and die, totally, you know?

Duggys Housemate

hognef wrote: »

So, if I were to accept that statement, then what do the following two sentences mean?

"I walked a hundred miles"
"I literally walked a hundred miles"

The first sentence still sounds like an exaggeration. Is the word "literally" in the second sentence therefore (1) still used to intensify that exaggeration?

Or does "literally" here clarify that (2) the speaker actually did walk a hundred miles (which is indeed possible, even though it might take a good while).

I would definitely go for option (2) - would you agree? If so, at what point does "literally" change from intensifying the exaggeration to clarifying that it is indeed not an exaggeration?

It changes in the same way as all other intensifiers. As in honestly, really. I honestly could eat a horse, I really could kill that woman.

ITs best to over-exagerate, but if someone could walk a hundred miles but obviously didn't ( i.e. he looks normal, is not limping), then that works too.

The difference is that honestly and really are universally used, but as we see from the comment above this one, literally is confined to some classes - although hognef is aping dort speech here I think literally is used, in both forms, more by the working classes.

Either way it isn't used by everybody to mean either literally, or as an intensifier figuratively, hence the distaste. But it follows the rules of all other intensifiers in hyperbole.

Duggys Housemate

Link on the same subject here

http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1499/