4 ms·

The colloquial meaning of “literally” isn’t quite “not literally”; it’s more of a generic intensifier.

by School-Cotton 5y ago

denton-scratch 5y ago
That's not what M-W says. They've gone the whole hog, and said that one meaning of "literally" is "not literally".
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  Dictionaries are trailing a moving target and are not always perfectly accurate.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > That's not what M-W says. M-W is [EDIT: or would be, see below], in that case, simply in error. The OED gets the colloquial use right: “Used to indicate that some (frequently conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’.” It also traces it back to at least 1769, which should shut up those people treating it as some new corruption. https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/109061 https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/109061 EDIT: On actually reading the M-W link, the characterization upthread is false: it doesn't say it means “not literally” but that it is “used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible”. This seems to just be a poorer wording of the OED take, especially in light of the extended discussion of that usage that is presented below thr definition proper.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Yeah, I'm good with that OED explanation. It's hard to get the nuance, but that's not bad. M-W is just incomprehensible - it's hard to understand how a lexicographer can make such a mess of defining a word. I mean, that's the core business.
    - School-Cotton 5y ago
      The editors of the OED are “hardcore descriptivists”, too. They’re just more complete and accurate than M-W, in this case.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    It also says "a story that is basically true even if not literally true". I don't think mine was a false characterisation, but see for yourself. I think M-W are descriptivist zealots, who will never accept that there is an incorrect usage. Therefore they contradict themselves in their own definition of this word. I don't think it's just a poorer wording; there's an ideological difference, one so important that it's defence requires this lexicographer, whose business is publishing definitions, to make a definition incomprehensible. This isn't the only example - M-W seems to be Google's preferred dictionary lookup for search terms (after some nasty spammy searches). I've seen a lot of M-W definitions that are contradictory, because of the ideology. </rant-mode>
dllthomas 5y ago
My go-to on this is that if someone says "you left me waiting for days" we don't say "sometimes 'days' means 'a few minutes'" and wring our hands about how anyone will communicate time. We say that people exaggerate. That doesn't really change if people say it a lot.

The colloquial meaning of “literally” isn’t quite “not literally”; it’s more of a generic intensifier.

denton-scratch 5y ago

That's not what M-W says. They've gone the whole hog, and said that one meaning of "literally" is "not literally".

School-Cotton 5y ago
Dictionaries are trailing a moving target and are not always perfectly accurate.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> That's not what M-W says. M-W is [EDIT: or would be, see below], in that case, simply in error. The OED gets the colloquial use right: “Used to indicate that some (frequently conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’.” It also traces it back to at least 1769, which should shut up those people treating it as some new corruption. https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/109061 https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/109061 EDIT: On actually reading the M-W link, the characterization upthread is false: it doesn't say it means “not literally” but that it is “used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible”. This seems to just be a poorer wording of the OED take, especially in light of the extended discussion of that usage that is presented below thr definition proper.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm good with that OED explanation. It's hard to get the nuance, but that's not bad. M-W is just incomprehensible - it's hard to understand how a lexicographer can make such a mess of defining a word. I mean, that's the core business.
  - School-Cotton 5y ago
    The editors of the OED are “hardcore descriptivists”, too. They’re just more complete and accurate than M-W, in this case.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  It also says "a story that is basically true even if not literally true". I don't think mine was a false characterisation, but see for yourself. I think M-W are descriptivist zealots, who will never accept that there is an incorrect usage. Therefore they contradict themselves in their own definition of this word. I don't think it's just a poorer wording; there's an ideological difference, one so important that it's defence requires this lexicographer, whose business is publishing definitions, to make a definition incomprehensible. This isn't the only example - M-W seems to be Google's preferred dictionary lookup for search terms (after some nasty spammy searches). I've seen a lot of M-W definitions that are contradictory, because of the ideology. </rant-mode>

dllthomas 5y ago

My go-to on this is that if someone says "you left me waiting for days" we don't say "sometimes 'days' means 'a few minutes'" and wring our hands about how anyone will communicate time. We say that people exaggerate. That doesn't really change if people say it a lot.