3 ms·

It isn't really used to mean 'figuratively' though is it? When someone says "I was so cross I literally exploded!" they are not explicitly pointing out that th

by bloat 7y ago

It isn't really used to mean 'figuratively' though is it? When someone says "I was so cross I literally exploded!" they are not explicitly pointing out that they didn't really explode, they're just using the word for some kind of emphasis.

dylan604 7y ago
But words have meaning, er, at least they used to. "I literally exploded" is not accurate, as they didn't actually explode. Maybe "I laterally exploded"? That word would work equally as well as it still makes no sense.
- iikoolpp 7y ago
  Words have meanings, and the meaning of literally is also emphasis. Bad prescriptivism.
  - gwd 7y ago
    > Words have meanings, and the meaning of literally is also emphasis. Bad prescriptivism. The insistence that simple emphasis is a valid use for "literally" -- and quoting M-W or the OED to support your case -- is just as prescriptive the insistence that it doesn't. Language is socially constructed by the people using it; we all "vote" by using it, and by policing its use. So let me ask you this: Do you want "literally" to be a meaningless emphasis word (and thus lose its ability to specify "this actually happened")? Or do you want "literally" to mean "I am not speaking figuratively, this thing actually happened"? If you want the former, then I disagree with you, but sure, go ahead and use your "vote" to police people objecting to "literally" meaning "figuratively". But if you want the latter, then join me in insisting that it means "this actually happened".
    - iikoolpp 7y ago
      What is this shit response? > The insistence that simple emphasis is a valid use for "literally" -- and quoting M-W or the OED to support your case -- is just as prescriptive the insistence that it doesn't. It's not prescriptivist because I'm describing the meaning it is currently ascribed to. > Do you want "literally" to be a meaningless emphasis word (and thus lose its ability to specify "this actually happened")? Yes? I use the language everyone else uses, not the Pure language that everyone decides is the only version in the world the second they enter their 20s. Why are you dying on this hill? Why are you mad that people are deviating from your One True Ideal of what you think the language should be? It's not like there aren't other words that you can substitute in; it's whining for the sake of whining against language change. Not to mention, you're dying on the hill against a language change that already happened hundreds of years ago.
ojosilva 7y ago
Sorta... "literally" may add emphasis to the figure of speech, a hyperbole, to make it even more hyperbolic. But in your example, "to explode" (according to Webster's) also means "to burst out in anger", so "literally" in this case would just serve to attest that the explosion of anger is accurate, which is the most essential definition of "literally" anyway. A better, similar example could be "I was so ashamed I literally imploded". In this case "literally" is just emphasizing a figurative implosion.
- gwd 7y ago
  > "literally" may add emphasis to the figure of speech I think "emphasis" is really what this alternate usage is. I had a weird experience when I rented the tux for my wedding. The tux came with a colored handkerchief that was meant to be tucked into the pocket of the coat in a decorative way; and the guy showing me how to do it kept using "literally": "Literally take the handercheif, and literally fold it over so, and literally put it in the pocket so." I was a bit bemused, but I didn't say anything, because he was literally taking the handkerchief, folding it over, and so on. But it seemed a bit strange to use it that way; I would certainly never have interpreted him as saying to metaphorically fold the handkerchief, so why emphasize "literally"? I posted the experience to FB, and someone pointed out that he was simply using the word "literally" for emphasis: in this case, emphasizing how simple the steps were. When people say things like "My head literally exploded", they're doing the same thing: simply using it as an intensifier.

by bloat 7y ago

dylan604 7y ago

But words have meaning, er, at least they used to. "I literally exploded" is not accurate, as they didn't actually explode. Maybe "I laterally exploded"? That word would work equally as well as it still makes no sense.

iikoolpp 7y ago
Words have meanings, and the meaning of literally is also emphasis. Bad prescriptivism.
- gwd 7y ago
  > Words have meanings, and the meaning of literally is also emphasis. Bad prescriptivism. The insistence that simple emphasis is a valid use for "literally" -- and quoting M-W or the OED to support your case -- is just as prescriptive the insistence that it doesn't. Language is socially constructed by the people using it; we all "vote" by using it, and by policing its use. So let me ask you this: Do you want "literally" to be a meaningless emphasis word (and thus lose its ability to specify "this actually happened")? Or do you want "literally" to mean "I am not speaking figuratively, this thing actually happened"? If you want the former, then I disagree with you, but sure, go ahead and use your "vote" to police people objecting to "literally" meaning "figuratively". But if you want the latter, then join me in insisting that it means "this actually happened".
  - iikoolpp 7y ago
    What is this shit response? > The insistence that simple emphasis is a valid use for "literally" -- and quoting M-W or the OED to support your case -- is just as prescriptive the insistence that it doesn't. It's not prescriptivist because I'm describing the meaning it is currently ascribed to. > Do you want "literally" to be a meaningless emphasis word (and thus lose its ability to specify "this actually happened")? Yes? I use the language everyone else uses, not the Pure language that everyone decides is the only version in the world the second they enter their 20s. Why are you dying on this hill? Why are you mad that people are deviating from your One True Ideal of what you think the language should be? It's not like there aren't other words that you can substitute in; it's whining for the sake of whining against language change. Not to mention, you're dying on the hill against a language change that already happened hundreds of years ago.

ojosilva 7y ago

Sorta... "literally" may add emphasis to the figure of speech, a hyperbole, to make it even more hyperbolic. But in your example, "to explode" (according to Webster's) also means "to burst out in anger", so "literally" in this case would just serve to attest that the explosion of anger is accurate, which is the most essential definition of "literally" anyway. A better, similar example could be "I was so ashamed I literally imploded". In this case "literally" is just emphasizing a figurative implosion.

gwd 7y ago
> "literally" may add emphasis to the figure of speech I think "emphasis" is really what this alternate usage is. I had a weird experience when I rented the tux for my wedding. The tux came with a colored handkerchief that was meant to be tucked into the pocket of the coat in a decorative way; and the guy showing me how to do it kept using "literally": "Literally take the handercheif, and literally fold it over so, and literally put it in the pocket so." I was a bit bemused, but I didn't say anything, because he was literally taking the handkerchief, folding it over, and so on. But it seemed a bit strange to use it that way; I would certainly never have interpreted him as saying to metaphorically fold the handkerchief, so why emphasize "literally"? I posted the experience to FB, and someone pointed out that he was simply using the word "literally" for emphasis: in this case, emphasizing how simple the steps were. When people say things like "My head literally exploded", they're doing the same thing: simply using it as an intensifier.