4 ms·

If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. > What you think is pretty much irrelevant

If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. > What you think is pretty much irrelevant if everyone else disagrees with you. You don't think I can find a single other person who agrees with me?

burkaman 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples "cleave" and "sanction" are probably the most familiar examples here.
- Retric 9y ago
  Off as in "The alarm went off" is another great example. You can tell the state changed, but not if it started or stopped.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. First, this is wrong; many words have multiple meanings some of which are diametrically opposed; they still have meaning, though it may take awareness of context to interpret the correct meaning. Second, its irrelevant; the different meanings of “literally” are not opposites, though the figurative use (which does not, contrary to some descriptions, mean same as “figuratively”) is often presented incorrectly in a manner which suggests that. The figurative meaning is a qualitative intensifier applied to another figurative description which the speaker expects is clearly figurative from context, not a description which communicated that that use is figurative rather than literal.
- haberman 9y ago
  The use of "literally" is only necessary in contexts where it is in question whether the meaning is literal or not. So it's hardly sufficient to say that we can infer from context whether the speaker's meaning is "clearly figurative", since that is exactly the ambiguity that the word "literally" is used to resolve.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The use of "literally" is only necessary in contexts where it is in question whether the meaning is literal or not. The use of literally with its meaning of “not figurative” is only necessary in those contexts where it is unclear without the additional term whether a use is figurative or literal. The use of it with its meaning as an intensifier of a figurative statement is only necessary (or appropriate) when it is already clear from context that the use is figurative and cannot be literal.
    - haberman 9y ago
      This analysis doesn't give the speaker any room to challenge the listener's expectations about what is possible. If the listener thinks a thing is impossible (particularly in a way that sounds potentially hyperbolic or humorous), the speaker can no longer use the word "literally" to clarify their meaning. Worse, as usage of the second meaning grows, it encroaches on one's ability to use the first meaning unambiguously. If the second usage becomes more and more commonplace, with the bar constantly lowering on how unbelievable something needs to be for this usage, it affects everyone who wants to use the word functionally. > The use of it with its meaning as an intensifier of a figurative statement is only necessary (or appropriate) That's awfully prescriptivist of you. Go with the flow, man! I'm literally done replying on this thread.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > This analysis doesn't give the speaker any room to challenge the listener's expectations about what is possible. Sure, it does; first, “context” includes everything other than the words used, including the manner of the speakers presentation, and, second, the rest of the English language is still available. One can, for instance, explicitly state, “not figuratively”. It's true that—as is true in general with figurative uses—the more common they become in situations where speaker and listener may nit view context the same way, the more they require verbose circumlocution to disambiguate literal from figurative use. (The use of “literally” in it's literal sense is almost entirely such a circumlocution made necessary by such issues with figurative uses of other words and phrases, for instance.) This affects figurative use of “literally” the same as any other figurative use of language.

burkaman 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym#Examples "cleave" and "sanction" are probably the most familiar examples here.

Retric 9y ago
Off as in "The alarm went off" is another great example. You can tell the state changed, but not if it started or stopped.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> If a word has two definitions that have opposite meanings, then the word literally doesn't have any meaning at all. First, this is wrong; many words have multiple meanings some of which are diametrically opposed; they still have meaning, though it may take awareness of context to interpret the correct meaning. Second, its irrelevant; the different meanings of “literally” are not opposites, though the figurative use (which does not, contrary to some descriptions, mean same as “figuratively”) is often presented incorrectly in a manner which suggests that. The figurative meaning is a qualitative intensifier applied to another figurative description which the speaker expects is clearly figurative from context, not a description which communicated that that use is figurative rather than literal.

haberman 9y ago
The use of "literally" is only necessary in contexts where it is in question whether the meaning is literal or not. So it's hardly sufficient to say that we can infer from context whether the speaker's meaning is "clearly figurative", since that is exactly the ambiguity that the word "literally" is used to resolve.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The use of "literally" is only necessary in contexts where it is in question whether the meaning is literal or not. The use of literally with its meaning of “not figurative” is only necessary in those contexts where it is unclear without the additional term whether a use is figurative or literal. The use of it with its meaning as an intensifier of a figurative statement is only necessary (or appropriate) when it is already clear from context that the use is figurative and cannot be literal.
  - haberman 9y ago
    This analysis doesn't give the speaker any room to challenge the listener's expectations about what is possible. If the listener thinks a thing is impossible (particularly in a way that sounds potentially hyperbolic or humorous), the speaker can no longer use the word "literally" to clarify their meaning. Worse, as usage of the second meaning grows, it encroaches on one's ability to use the first meaning unambiguously. If the second usage becomes more and more commonplace, with the bar constantly lowering on how unbelievable something needs to be for this usage, it affects everyone who wants to use the word functionally. > The use of it with its meaning as an intensifier of a figurative statement is only necessary (or appropriate) That's awfully prescriptivist of you. Go with the flow, man! I'm literally done replying on this thread.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > This analysis doesn't give the speaker any room to challenge the listener's expectations about what is possible. Sure, it does; first, “context” includes everything other than the words used, including the manner of the speakers presentation, and, second, the rest of the English language is still available. One can, for instance, explicitly state, “not figuratively”. It's true that—as is true in general with figurative uses—the more common they become in situations where speaker and listener may nit view context the same way, the more they require verbose circumlocution to disambiguate literal from figurative use. (The use of “literally” in it's literal sense is almost entirely such a circumlocution made necessary by such issues with figurative uses of other words and phrases, for instance.) This affects figurative use of “literally” the same as any other figurative use of language.