Since it’s widely accepted that the word “literally” can be used to add emphasis, we need another word that can be used when you want to make it clear that you really mean “literally” in the original sense.
I agree, the bastardization of Literally is one of my vocabulary pet peeves, along with Crescendo.
Literally, same
The funny thing about the figurative literally is that it being “wrong” is pretty recent and short lived. You’ll find it in many works considered some of the best literature ever written - Little Women, The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn, David Copperfield, Wuthering Heights, and many more
Once I found out that that the definition of literally has literally been changed to “literally, but sometimes figuratively”, I’ve switched to objectively and subjectively when describing things, which aren’t quite the same but I literally don’t have a word anymore that means literally.
So instead of literally you could use objectively. I like that no one is going to use objectively as slang because it’s kind of a clunky, obtuse word that doesn’t literally roll off the tongue.
People already are using objectively the same way as literally.
For real
Exactly
Illiteratly
Actually, though.
The word you’re looking for is “literally.”
Wait until you find out where the word very comes from.
Verily the veritas may surprise you.
Edit: and literally does not even literally mean “opposite of figuratively” — it literally means “by the letter” — as in literature — as any literate person knows.
I may be a little amused by it, but not verily surprised.
Its a very bemusing experience ;)
I am nonplussed.
Yeah, literally
The word they’re looking for literally is “literally”.
Not metaphorically
Unfortunately Merriam-Webster disagrees.
If you feel that it’s unfortunate, why take their side? I’ve found that no confusion is caused by using it the correct way. If any might be, it is at least in service of a noble cause.
Language evolves and, more ever than Merriam-Webster, the speakers and writers get to decide what words mean. While that does apply to you not wanting it mean that, you are swimming against the current in this case.
Linguistic drift happens over generations, this is just illiteracy
Swimming against the current is how all social progress is made.
That is beautiful
Right, I’m aware of this and see nothing wrong with it.
Dictionary compilation is descriptive, not prescriptive.
They don’t “disagree” with anyone. They just report on how words are being used.
You can’t get into an argument with a dictionary, no matter how hard you try.
- Mirriam-webster isn’t a great dictionary. It’s in the name.
- Dictionaries don’t say what’s correct; only what’s popular.
In German we have multiple different words that mean “literally”, not all of which can be used for emphasis. There are the phrases “im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes” (“in the truest sense of the word”) as well as “etwas wörtlich nehmen” (“to take something literally”), both of which are usually not used for emphasis, presumably also because they don’t nearly fit into the grammatical construction of a sentence in a way that would produce emphasis. Then there is “buchstäblich” (roughly “letterish”), which means the same thing as literally and can be used in both ways, as it’s an adverb. But then there is “wortwörtlich” (roughly “word-wordly”), which is also an adverb and grammatically fits into the same position, but I’ve never heard it being used for emphasis.
Language is weird.
“No cap fr fr”
Welcome to languages, where the definitions aren’t static, and the meanings change over time.
This is brought to you by the word angnail. Yes angnail, not hangnail. Okay fine it’s hangnail now.
Change is expected and important.
The word literal is an equally important job to do.
It’s fine to make literal not mean literal, but then instead of needing a word that means not literal, we’re gonna need a word that means literal.
Alright, guess maybe it becomes literally literal or not literally literal.
Come to think of it, maybe we should just say not literally literal for things that aren’t actually literal and are just intending to be emphasized.
Linguistic drift happens over generations, this is just illiteracy
So you mean, if this use of ‘literally’ had been around for, say, several centuries, you’d consider it acceptable?
Lol still no, the article you linked makes it clear that in all that time the situation hasn’t changed at all, the primary definition is the same and the secondary usage is the same and the criticism is the same
Your comment was purely about these changes taking generations to happen, this is something that has been in the work since the 18th century. It’s a perfectly typical change, not a sudden one based in illiteracy.
No, this is something that has not changed at all since the 18th century, learn to read
You are so confidently incorrect and unable to recognize your error. I invite you to re-read the whole article. This is a use that first surfaced in the 18th century and has slowly become more common, with an adoption peak recently. That’s how languages evolve.
In any case, definitely not about illiteracy, which, once again, is your original claim.
Gain some maturity.
The primary definition is unchanged for several centuries, the secondary definition has always been secondary and is more controversial than ever, if anything it seems pretty obvious that any linguistic drift occurring is in the opposite direction of your preference. I’m right and I’m winning, cope.
I literally only use “literally” when I literally mean “literally”.
Thank you
Bless you
Isn’t that just figuratively?
Had to scroll down 40 posts before this appeared.
Literally?
No, actually 32.
Archer made it acceptable to say too so you dont just sound like a grammar nerd
It is
It would be subject to the same fate.
you beat me to it in fewer words
Reminds me of biohazard symbols, they need to be recognisable but only used for their intended purpose.
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/biohazard-symbol-designed-to-be-memorable-but-meaningless/
Trying to proscribe a particular usage is a doomed effort. You may as well literally command the tides to turn back. You’re really tilting at windmills. It’s seriously like mocking a clown. It’s exponentially harder than…
no, wait, we can still save “exponentially”! It doesn’t just mean a lot! It has important properties that differentiate it from linear or polynomial systems that make predicting outcomes-
small, linguistic drowning noises
EDIT: small, linguistic surfacing noises
I thought of another one, rational used to just mean “possible to express as a ratio” before it got co-opted by the academic-industrial complex-
smaller, somehow more pathetic linguistic drowning noises
I think the lesson to learn here is that it is easier to kill a word by adding a new meaning than by policing how other people use it.
Eradicating a colloquial definition is like eradicating a virus, except anyone can crack open an old book at any time and revive it with their mind. I’m sure there are some meanings that have truly died i.e. there are no surviving records of them on earth, but they sure seem resilient. That’s before considering that the circumstances that give rise to one meaning might easily reoccur and cause the same meaning to rise again, perhaps under a new name. Sort of a convergent evolution for words, if you will.
I think the best we can hope to do is nudge words into more useful meanings, and create new words when our old words get overloaded.
Thanks for the support, fellow windmill tilter.
In truth, I just came to accept that change is inevitable. Now I got my phonetic floaties, my reading goggles, and a literal (middle english definition) inner tube, and I just see where the current takes me.
rational used to just mean "possible to express as a ratio before it got co-opted by the academic-industrial complex- "
Hmmm… when you say “academic” do you mean the Academy of ancient Greece? Because I’m guessing that’s around when that mix-up first happened.
Now that I think about it I’m less sure that it was such a mistake. A rational number is one that can be expressed as a fraction, so the full number is expressible (vs irrational numbers which can only be approximated or represented as symbols, like PI. I think). If an idea is “rational”, then the whole idea (all the antecedents and the conclusion) is expressible in a logical system, whereas an “irrational” idea can’t be expressed as a logical structure. I think “rational” as a shorthand for “has a finite logical definition” is pretty reasonable.
I just looked it up, and according to wikipedia I have it backwards, the number groups were named “rational” and “irrational” according to whether they were sayable or unsayable, which makes sense. Though one of the references in that section is just to… a guy on stackexchange paraphrasing what he read in the OED, so not sure I’m buying that page 100%. More research is needed.
