I don't have the book by me now, but he documented a lot words that flipped meaning pretty significantly over less than a half century.
I am literally crying over this
- Thread starter Isaac
- Start date
I don't have the book by me now, but he documented a lot words that flipped meaning pretty significantly over less than a half century.
I had seen this thread, read it and thought most people knew how to use the word literally, so I didn't really pay much mind to it. Then last night I was watching Saturday Night Live and Kevin Hart, in his monologue, said something along these lines:
"...after a homeless guy puts his palm over a sandwich the other guy just yelled at him to take it... Which is a good thing because a homeless guy just had his hand on it, which literally, you're just asking for a disease if you eat it."
"...after a homeless guy puts his palm over a sandwich the other guy just yelled at him to take it... Which is a good thing because a homeless guy just had his hand on it, which literally, you're just asking for a disease if you eat it."
- Thread starter
- #144
I saw that same skit. I shook my head in shame.
To those who defend such "evolution" of language: Now that the word "literally" is not universally understood, how are we supposed to communicate to people that we mean something literally (original meaning)?
They have not only destroyed a word, they've left us without a suitable replacement.
They have not only destroyed a word, they've left us without a suitable replacement.
I'm not defending the evolution of the language, though I am stating that it is happening, and always has been happening.
For some, the use of the word literally preceding a statement can be redundant.
It makes no difference if you use it in the following context;
The cat is dead. The cat is literally dead.
This thread has 146 posts. This thread has literally 146 posts.
In a situation where it would be ludicrous to assume a "literal" meaning, one may simply dismiss it, as to assume the phrase has a literal meaning, even when it obviously does not is unthinkable.
I ate so much last night, I literally exploded.
The use of "literally" is only useful in a situation where ambiguity exists.
I am literally the king of my domain. This could be true. He might "literally" be the King of his Domain.
But context again assists us in determining whether this is true or not.
For some, the use of the word literally preceding a statement can be redundant.
It makes no difference if you use it in the following context;
The cat is dead. The cat is literally dead.
This thread has 146 posts. This thread has literally 146 posts.
In a situation where it would be ludicrous to assume a "literal" meaning, one may simply dismiss it, as to assume the phrase has a literal meaning, even when it obviously does not is unthinkable.
I ate so much last night, I literally exploded.
The use of "literally" is only useful in a situation where ambiguity exists.
I am literally the king of my domain. This could be true. He might "literally" be the King of his Domain.
But context again assists us in determining whether this is true or not.
Well, if you think about it, the word "literally" was our defence against people who use words and phrases in non-literal ways! They would create ambiguity; we had a way to clarify meaning.
Now those same people have started using "literally" in a non-literal way, so we are losing that ability. So it is an especially cruel change.
Last edited:
This is the perennial prescriptivist vs. descriptivist debate. Literally is not necessarily redundant when used in this way; it's often meant as an intensifier. Like it or not -- and, in general, I don't like it, certainly not in formal writing -- it's common parlance, as the (descriptive) OED entry confirms. As for the complaint that we no longer have a word to signify what literally is "supposed" to mean, that's simply not true. We have literally. In 999 out of a thousand cases, you can tell from the context whether literally is being used as an intensifier or in contradistinction to figuratively. What's more, unless the subject is figures of speech, you can usually omit "literally" if all you mean is "not figuratively". "My arm bone literally came out of its socket" ==> "My arm bone came out of its socket." (I'm agreeing with Phil here.) "Omit unnecessary words" is another common prescription. 
Last edited:
While true, this may lead to confusion as stated above, which could lead to a life-threatening misunderstanding, but we do have "actually" which would not be misunderstood to mean "figuratively"... or as you said, simply omit the modifier as it is not needed to convey the thought.
I think literacy has taken a backseat (or has been embedded) to popular culture so much that all these idioms and non words over time become part of our lexicon wether we want it or not, some words become "cool" to use and people use it just for the sake of being, well, cool... Like "literally" or "whatever." Or maybe it's just literally easier for people to pronounce "literally" than "figuratively."
I'd agree that it is literally a major contributor.
Now the word isn't ever needed? Instead of correcting people's mistakes we simply say, "Oh that word isn't really needed ever. It's all about context. So it's not really 'wrong' to ever use it in any description. Only the people who are sticking to the actual definition of the word need to change their thoughts/behavior."
Puhhh-lease.
There are legitimate evolutions of languages and words, and then there is simply incorrect usage of words. This is, quite literally, a textbook example of the latter.
Puhhh-lease.
There are legitimate evolutions of languages and words, and then there is simply incorrect usage of words. This is, quite literally, a textbook example of the latter.
Now the word isn't ever needed? Instead of correcting people's mistakes we simply say, "Oh that word isn't really needed ever. It's all about context. So it's not really 'wrong' to ever use it in any description. Only the people who are sticking to the actual definition of the word need to change their thoughts/behavior."
Puhhh-lease.
There are legitimate evolutions of languages and words, and then there is simply incorrect usage of words. This is, quite literally, a textbook example of the latter.
It is not without it's purpose. It serves to color language and intensify thoughts. Without modifiers of all forms, language would be very dry and clinical.
There is a difference between having no purpose, and not being required to convey the thought.
If a word creates a source of confusion (context not clarifying), then it would be best omitted.
And as I indicated above, I am not in agreement with the "redefined" form being included in the OED, but sadly, the misuse of the word has become a literal fact of life.
The only reason it causes confusion is its misuse. Used properly, it doesn't confuse at all. But we are in agreement overall.
Whether anyone discussing the fact agrees or disagrees in this thread is not going to change common usage.
Correct people when they use it "incorrectly". If enough people do that, and do not tolerate its misuse, then it could make a difference.
Talking about it here? Not so much.
Correct people when they use it "incorrectly". If enough people do that, and do not tolerate its misuse, then it could make a difference.
Talking about it here? Not so much.
And I do that if I can do so in an inoffensive manner.
"Reviewing that project made my head literally explode!"
"Literally? You must have a good doctor!"
Exactly!
C'mon. They're not all that bad are they?
and
for good measure.
-Andy
Literally +1
The misuse of "which" bugged me more...
