7 ms·

The use of "literally" in this context is so pervasive that any English dictionary will include it in its definition. This nit-picking is so pervasive that Merr

The use of "literally" in this context is so pervasive that any English dictionary will include it in its definition. This nit-picking is so pervasive that Merriam-Webster includes an FAQ on the words use. "Can literally mean figuratively? One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal"). Is the extended use of literally new? The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others. Is the extended use of literally slang? Among the meanings of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally)

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
You're not wrong, but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way. Most of the time, it's obvious from context what one means by 'literally' but not always. Why create extra ambiguity when there already exists other functional language constructs to express the same thought with clarity? It does make me wonder how much this happens in other languages, especially ones like French where there is an effort to keep the language from morphing too much, too quickly.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It's not "deterioration" just change. Deterioration implies deviation from a natural, ideal, or perfect state, which languages simply do not have. This belief that the language is in decline and losing some ineffable beauty or value is older than english, in fact some of our oldest historical documents at all are versions of this lament. The language we speak now is the result of millennia of such "deterioration." Those language-control bodies that some countries have are somewhat a relic of before we had our current understanding of the mechanics of language use and how languages change over time. They can also be understood as a leftover tool from the european bootstrapping-nationstates era. Either way, those bodies may (but it's debatable) have some influence on the rate the language change, or what specific changes occur. But nowhere near as much as they purport to, maybe close to none at all.
- knodi123 4y ago
  Eh. It's not a deterioration, it's just language. It's not like there was a carefully designed "one true language" in the past and this is a fallen world speaking only inferior pidgins. Even in the bible, we can see Jesus starting a lot of stories with "truly, truly I say unto you..." followed by a parable.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way English is not Latin. It was born deteriorated.
GavinMcG 4y ago
I agree. Also, I dislike it, and the double emphasis provided by "quite" makes it even worse—how can something be especially non-metaphorical, or especially understood in the (already) "strongest admissible sense"?[0] Maybe my criticism should have been better targeted, but it's silly usage and I'm feeling like a SNOOT.[1] [0] OED Online [1] David Foster Wallace, Tense Present, available at https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-04-0070913.pdf https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-...
pklausler 4y ago
I will stop figuratively dying on this hill when English literally acquires a word that only means "literally" in the single sense of "not figuratively".
- eesmith 4y ago
  Wow, your post history shows your many attempts at protecting that hill: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=pklausler%20literally&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... including this same complaint, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846302 ! And one use, 6 years ago, where you did die on that hill, when you wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738257 > It literally kills me how performant and impactful your code is to the many unique users that comprise the community. :-) > Seriously, though, the original ... If you're already dead then you can stop dying. :-)
tshaddox 4y ago
Not to mention that English dictionaries have a definition for “cradle” like “a place, process, or event in which something originates or flourishes.” That river is literally that.
- GavinMcG 4y ago
  No, it isn’t. The definition is of a metaphor. A metaphor doesn’t become a literalism just because a dictionary included it.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." If you want to talk about the "original" meaning or "etymologically faithful" meaning or whatever, then go for it, but note that most modern baby cradles aren't at all baskets in the sense that the English word originated. That's because all words originate as imperfectly-specified references to things and concepts. The things and concepts and our references to them change over time.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      > The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." I don't really care to weigh in on the rest of this spat, but this isn't a contradiction: it is the case that a given sense of a word, listed in a dictionary, may yet be metaphorical—it is not the case that finding a definition of a word in a dictionary proves that that sense isn't metaphorical, and in fact, any common metaphorical usage of a word is quite likely to end up in a dictionary, at which point it does not (necessarily!) stop being metaphorical. (I find the rest of the post basically sound, for all the nothing my judgement on that is worth—this part is just not strong, is all)
      - tshaddox 4y ago
        I just think it’s a bit of a weird line to draw because you have to somehow choose how far back to go in the etymological history of the word and insist that every different meaning thereafter is “metaphorical.” Personally I wouldn’t call usages that are so widely used and understood that they’re in every dictionary “figurative.”
yamtaddle 4y ago
A dictionary having a definition in it isn't evidence a given usage is good. The primary mission of most dictionaries is to help people understand language they encounter, which may include ill-advised-to-use, misleading, ironic, code- or register-specific, or slang senses of words. In this case, it was not a good idea to use the word "literally" this way, in this place. The clearest sign that it wasn't a good idea is that this discussion about the word is happening.
- JasonCEC 4y ago
  The literal literary contestation between descriptive and prescriptive dictionaries is alive and well[0], though the war has been lost, and your fellow prescriptivist have yet to surrender. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-draconian-dictionary-is-back/566660/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-d...
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    My? Descriptivist dictionaries are a good idea.
    - JasonCEC 4y ago
      Apologies - I wrote that quickly in jest, and in any-case, it seems were on the same side of the descriptivist argument.
alan-crowe 4y ago
Claiming that things are OK because they are pervasive makes William Willerforce cry.
dllthomas 4y ago
I think Merriam-Webster has this a little bit wrong, actually. It's not that it's a different meaning of the word, but that the word is being used hyperbolically. When someone says "you left me waiting for days" we don't say "sometimes days means minutes" and fret about how anyone will understand time. We say that people exaggerate. The fact that this use shows up pretty much right away is evidence that it's not a different sense of the word, but people doing an ordinary thing they do with any word we hand them.
- jamincan 4y ago
  I think you're right that it's an example of hyperbole. The important thing to understand in the context of this discussion though, is that hyperbole is not ungrammatical. It serves a function in a sentence to communicate emphasis or draw attention. Saying 'it is quite literally the cradle of Chinese civilization' is no less grammatical than saying 'I have a tonne of work to do' or 'downtown is dead on Monday nights'.
  - dllthomas 4y ago
    I don't think anyone was saying "{Noun phrase} is literally {other noun phrase}" is ever ungrammatical, just disagreeing about how often it's incorrect.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

You're not wrong, but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way. Most of the time, it's obvious from context what one means by 'literally' but not always. Why create extra ambiguity when there already exists other functional language constructs to express the same thought with clarity? It does make me wonder how much this happens in other languages, especially ones like French where there is an effort to keep the language from morphing too much, too quickly.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
It's not "deterioration" just change. Deterioration implies deviation from a natural, ideal, or perfect state, which languages simply do not have. This belief that the language is in decline and losing some ineffable beauty or value is older than english, in fact some of our oldest historical documents at all are versions of this lament. The language we speak now is the result of millennia of such "deterioration." Those language-control bodies that some countries have are somewhat a relic of before we had our current understanding of the mechanics of language use and how languages change over time. They can also be understood as a leftover tool from the european bootstrapping-nationstates era. Either way, those bodies may (but it's debatable) have some influence on the rate the language change, or what specific changes occur. But nowhere near as much as they purport to, maybe close to none at all.
knodi123 4y ago
Eh. It's not a deterioration, it's just language. It's not like there was a carefully designed "one true language" in the past and this is a fallen world speaking only inferior pidgins. Even in the bible, we can see Jesus starting a lot of stories with "truly, truly I say unto you..." followed by a parable.
BeetleB 4y ago
> but it's a real shame that the English language keeps deteriorating this way English is not Latin. It was born deteriorated.

GavinMcG 4y ago

I agree. Also, I dislike it, and the double emphasis provided by "quite" makes it even worse—how can something be especially non-metaphorical, or especially understood in the (already) "strongest admissible sense"?[0] Maybe my criticism should have been better targeted, but it's silly usage and I'm feeling like a SNOOT.[1] [0] OED Online [1] David Foster Wallace, Tense Present, available at https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-04-0070913.pdf https://harpers.org/wp-content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-...

pklausler 4y ago

I will stop figuratively dying on this hill when English literally acquires a word that only means "literally" in the single sense of "not figuratively".

eesmith 4y ago
Wow, your post history shows your many attempts at protecting that hill: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=pklausler%20literally&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... including this same complaint, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846302 ! And one use, 6 years ago, where you did die on that hill, when you wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738257 > It literally kills me how performant and impactful your code is to the many unique users that comprise the community. :-) > Seriously, though, the original ... If you're already dead then you can stop dying. :-)

tshaddox 4y ago

Not to mention that English dictionaries have a definition for “cradle” like “a place, process, or event in which something originates or flourishes.” That river is literally that.

GavinMcG 4y ago
No, it isn’t. The definition is of a metaphor. A metaphor doesn’t become a literalism just because a dictionary included it.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." If you want to talk about the "original" meaning or "etymologically faithful" meaning or whatever, then go for it, but note that most modern baby cradles aren't at all baskets in the sense that the English word originated. That's because all words originate as imperfectly-specified references to things and concepts. The things and concepts and our references to them change over time.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > The definition is of the word, not "of a metaphor." I don't really care to weigh in on the rest of this spat, but this isn't a contradiction: it is the case that a given sense of a word, listed in a dictionary, may yet be metaphorical—it is not the case that finding a definition of a word in a dictionary proves that that sense isn't metaphorical, and in fact, any common metaphorical usage of a word is quite likely to end up in a dictionary, at which point it does not (necessarily!) stop being metaphorical. (I find the rest of the post basically sound, for all the nothing my judgement on that is worth—this part is just not strong, is all)
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      I just think it’s a bit of a weird line to draw because you have to somehow choose how far back to go in the etymological history of the word and insist that every different meaning thereafter is “metaphorical.” Personally I wouldn’t call usages that are so widely used and understood that they’re in every dictionary “figurative.”

yamtaddle 4y ago

A dictionary having a definition in it isn't evidence a given usage is good. The primary mission of most dictionaries is to help people understand language they encounter, which may include ill-advised-to-use, misleading, ironic, code- or register-specific, or slang senses of words. In this case, it was not a good idea to use the word "literally" this way, in this place. The clearest sign that it wasn't a good idea is that this discussion about the word is happening.

JasonCEC 4y ago
The literal literary contestation between descriptive and prescriptive dictionaries is alive and well[0], though the war has been lost, and your fellow prescriptivist have yet to surrender. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-draconian-dictionary-is-back/566660/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/08/the-d...
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  My? Descriptivist dictionaries are a good idea.
  - JasonCEC 4y ago
    Apologies - I wrote that quickly in jest, and in any-case, it seems were on the same side of the descriptivist argument.

alan-crowe 4y ago

Claiming that things are OK because they are pervasive makes William Willerforce cry.

dllthomas 4y ago

I think Merriam-Webster has this a little bit wrong, actually. It's not that it's a different meaning of the word, but that the word is being used hyperbolically. When someone says "you left me waiting for days" we don't say "sometimes days means minutes" and fret about how anyone will understand time. We say that people exaggerate. The fact that this use shows up pretty much right away is evidence that it's not a different sense of the word, but people doing an ordinary thing they do with any word we hand them.

jamincan 4y ago
I think you're right that it's an example of hyperbole. The important thing to understand in the context of this discussion though, is that hyperbole is not ungrammatical. It serves a function in a sentence to communicate emphasis or draw attention. Saying 'it is quite literally the cradle of Chinese civilization' is no less grammatical than saying 'I have a tonne of work to do' or 'downtown is dead on Monday nights'.
- dllthomas 4y ago
  I don't think anyone was saying "{Noun phrase} is literally {other noun phrase}" is ever ungrammatical, just disagreeing about how often it's incorrect.