4 ms·

> It's like the word 'literally' (whose bastardization is both far more egregious and hilarious) "literally" has been used to mean "figuratively" for hundreds

> It's like the word 'literally' (whose bastardization is both far more egregious and hilarious) "literally" has been used to mean "figuratively" for hundreds of years, by plenty of famous authors. The idea that "literally" should only mean "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy" seems to be the actual recent invention.

andrewla 7y ago
Mostly a question of euphemism drift (or rhetorical drift, if that's a thing) -- "really" and "very" are former terms that meant "without exaggeration or inaccuracy" but slowly drifted towards a rhetoric use.
- rriepe 7y ago
  Interesting. (That's another one that tends to mean the opposite)
  - andrewla 7y ago
    Wait, was this a burn? Ouch.
    - rriepe 7y ago
      Hah, honestly I think I replied to the wrong thing.
ajennings 7y ago
The problem is that we need a way to say "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy" succinctly. Also, to say "I am using an idiom, but non-idiomatically." "Literally" should be that tool. I understand that a word's meaning is, by definition, what people mean when they say it, but it is frustrating to have this communication tool drift away with nothing to replace it. As another commenter said, this same thing happened to "very" and "really" in the past. So maybe it's time to let "literally" go and make up a new word for it?
- mcphage 7y ago
  > but it is frustrating to have this communication tool drift away with nothing to replace it. My point is that it isn't "drifting away"—it has been used as an intensifier for hundreds of years.
aembleton 7y ago
What is the point of the word literally then? What information does it convey if not to say that it is actually, without exaggeration?
- mcphage 7y ago
  > What is the point of the word literally then? I don't think words have a point. > What information does it convey if not to say that it is actually, without exaggeration? Sometimes it does convey that. And sometimes it's merely an intensifier. Lots of words are like that.

andrewla 7y ago

Mostly a question of euphemism drift (or rhetorical drift, if that's a thing) -- "really" and "very" are former terms that meant "without exaggeration or inaccuracy" but slowly drifted towards a rhetoric use.

rriepe 7y ago
Interesting. (That's another one that tends to mean the opposite)
- andrewla 7y ago
  Wait, was this a burn? Ouch.
  - rriepe 7y ago
    Hah, honestly I think I replied to the wrong thing.

ajennings 7y ago

The problem is that we need a way to say "actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy" succinctly. Also, to say "I am using an idiom, but non-idiomatically." "Literally" should be that tool. I understand that a word's meaning is, by definition, what people mean when they say it, but it is frustrating to have this communication tool drift away with nothing to replace it. As another commenter said, this same thing happened to "very" and "really" in the past. So maybe it's time to let "literally" go and make up a new word for it?

mcphage 7y ago
> but it is frustrating to have this communication tool drift away with nothing to replace it. My point is that it isn't "drifting away"—it has been used as an intensifier for hundreds of years.

aembleton 7y ago

What is the point of the word literally then? What information does it convey if not to say that it is actually, without exaggeration?

mcphage 7y ago
> What is the point of the word literally then? I don't think words have a point. > What information does it convey if not to say that it is actually, without exaggeration? Sometimes it does convey that. And sometimes it's merely an intensifier. Lots of words are like that.