3 ms·
> When the word "literally" can mean, casually, either "literally" or "figuratively" then it ceases to have any real meaning. i don't think i can agree here, a
by abiox 9y ago
> When the word "literally" can mean, casually, either "literally" or "figuratively" then it ceases to have any real meaning.
i don't think i can agree here, at least not with the gist. in a sense, words already don't have 'real meaning' (they're just noises or scribbles depending on the medium), their meaning or communicative value is bestowed by their actual use in a specific language, place, time, etc.
if you mean to say that we can't communicate the non-figurative sense of 'literally', consider: when someone whines 'you mean figuratively, not literally', this necessarily implies that the complainer understood what was said. if they can comprehend this distinction, it would seem utility remains and the complaint is informed mostly by a resistance to change (imo).
> We really do need to take some care here or else we'll soon be spelling "lose" as "loose."
this seems like a separate issue. the words 'lose' and 'loose' are not being used interchangeably (afaik); my sense of it is that it's just an issue of transcription because the spelling is extremely similar.
- dhimes 9y agoI would suggest that if someone "whines" 'you mean figuratively, not literally' that they may be double-checking (depends on context of course). Or perhaps the complaint may be due to the fact that the complainer does not know that "literally" can mean "figuratively." I agreed that the word "literally" can be used figuratively, but this use needs to be obvious- kind of like pronouns. I personally prefer to avoid that use because I am not a particularly talented wordsmith.