4 ms·
I'm in this camp. To me, 'literally' has only one meaning. If it doesn't, the word loses all utility. He could say 'is essentially the glue', I suppose.
by clebio 14y ago
I'm in this camp. To me, 'literally' has only one meaning. If it doesn't, the word loses all utility. He could say 'is essentially the glue', I suppose.
- glomph 14y agoYou are outdated to the extent that you would have been behind the times in the 1680s where the word was already being used to mean 'what follows must be taken in the strongest admissible sense'.
- namank 14y agoWell, they make a valid point in that a word carries with it implicit attributes that should also be taken into account. It's what really separates bad writing from very bad writing. Then again, it's also a perspective thing.
- clebio 14y agoCurious why such a specific time period. Is there a source for 1680s? The 17th century would probably be sufficient otherwise.
- joshAg 14y agoOED has the source if you have access to it, which I don't or I would provide it here.
- saraid216 14y agohttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literally&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=literally&allow... Etymonline does not reproduce the OED, but it does source from it and sometimes you get lucky.
- clebio 14y agoThanks for the link! It's fairly interesting, too. That citation specifically reads: 'Erroneously used in reference to metaphors, hyperbole, etc., even by writers like Dryden and Pope, to indicate "what follows must be taken in the strongest admissible sense" (1680s), which is opposite to the word's real meaning.' So for one, it states clearly 'erroneously used' (and indeed has this specific wording, 'strongest admissible sense'). Further, gives the 1680 number, but doesn't actually source that any further (general writing periods of Dryden and Pope? Perhaps, though not clear). Anyway, that's fun. I miss the OED, but it's the sort of massive tome that's impractical to always have on hand.
- SilasX 14y agoThat's fine, as long as you have an alternative ready that takes the meaning that the old "literally" had when I do want the statement to be taken, er, literally. If you don't, then it makes a lot of sense to defend literal from non-literal usage. What's the alternative that I can use and be understood?
- nwienert 14y agoContext.
- SilasX 14y ago"Hello, 911? Yeah, I've got an unconscious person here. His face is literally purple." Did I mean literally literally, or figuratively? And how can the previous question have meaning?
- ars 14y agoYou remove the emphasizer and just say: "His face is purple."
- SilasX 14y agoAnd then they say, "literally purple?"
- jerf 14y agoThe problem with this argument is that you are hypothesizing a case that, if it were going to be happening, would be happening now, not in the future. Yet it does not. There is no great epidemic of confused 911 operators because they can't make out whether or not someone on the other end used literally "correctly". While one can speculate on why you might be wrong about this being a problem, an examination of the world around us rather strongly suggests that there's no question that there is something fatally wrong with your argument.