You get to remove one word from the English language
- Thread starter Brendan Stepladder
- Start date
I'm sorry no, this argument just does not hold up in practice. Language is inherently arbitrary. There is nothing about the sound combination that goes into the word, "Apple" that is particularly apple-y. If the meaning of a word changes based on misunderstandings, it is fine because you still have one assortment of sounds that means one idea, and we all commonly accept it. But "literally" has come to be used in 2 senses. Either it means "It would be easy to interpret this anecdote metaphorically, but in this case you should specifically not do that" OR it means "Interprete this as a metaphor". Using both these definitions interchangeably means that in every use of the word literally, it adds absolutely no information or clarification to the statement. In situations where a person makes an assumption about the definition the person is using, it can only confuse the message. And worst of all, I LIKE the proper use of the word literally. It is invaluable in countless unusual situations where some event has happened that is a literal version of a colloquialism. Literally allows me to clarify that. When people use literally wrong, and saying that I mean a colloquialism literally does not actually communicate my intent, it can take a very long time of awkward rephrasing to get my point across.axlryder said:
For example:
Is someone says that a group of people are literally as old as the hills, do they mean that they are a very old people with a rich history, or that they have a history that predates geological activity, perhaps with some alien or religious based history. You don't know.
You are in a place with poisonous snakes. A electrician is working on your basement because you expect that it is dangerously out of code. The electrician tells you, "That basement is literally a nest of vipers". Do you call Animal Control, or do you just breath a sigh of relief that you called an electrician before your house burned down? You don't know.
If someone is talking to you at a party about some other guy their, and he says, "That guy is literally grasping at straws", is he making a joke about the guy grabbing for a straw to put in his beverage, or is he criticizing the guy for not being able to back up his beliefs and is resorting to wild fantasies. You don't know.
Talking about a child, someone says, "She is literally starving". Is this an accusation of child abuse, or an observation that it is probably the child's mealtime? You don't know.
"There are, like, literally 9 cops behind me right now" How many cops are behind this person? If there really were 9 cops behind this person (Certainly not impossible, but odd enough to merit a comment), how would they communicate this idea unambiguously?
"I'm literally dying of allergies". Serious medical problem worth of panic and an emergency room visit, or a runny nose?
Once, I went camping on some land belonging to my friend. But the camp site was different, maybe a quarter mile away from out original. I asked why, and my friend said, "It's literally shitty over their." Now another friend of mine brings his dogs camping, and deciding to move camp instead of picking it up is completely in character for my friends. Did he mean that the campsite was messed up, or that animals had left droppings?
if a historical figure was, "Literally thrown to the wolves", were they bodily tossed to wild animals, or did they have, well, anything else bad in existence happen to them?
Jerry Falwell once said that the Homosexuals will literally crush all decent men, women and children who get in their way. If he making a point about the aggressiveness of the, "Gay Agenda", or does he think Homosexuals will in fact murder people by crushing. He was a crazy man. We don't really know.
Over-exaggerated.
I would argue that it is not a word. But just for anyone who would oppose me, remove it.
It's a monstrosity and I die inside every time I hear someone say it.
I would argue that it is not a word. But just for anyone who would oppose me, remove it.
It's a monstrosity and I die inside every time I hear someone say it.
Literally as old as the hills would be interpreted metaphorically. Literally thrown to the wolves would likely mean they were literally thrown to the wolves. No one would say "I'm literally dying of allergies", they would say "call an ambulance, I can't breath". What's more, it would be obvious what they meant by LOOKING at them. Almost all of those examples could easily be gleaned from, again, visual/verbal context or common sense. Never once have I seen someone say "wait, did you mean that figuratively?" The only thing I've seen is anal individuals 'correcting' others for using the word incorrectly, because they already damn well knew they meant it in a figurative sense. I could just as easily make the claim that your argument for misunderstandings doesn't hold up in practice, as I've never seen people use "literally" in a figurative sense unless they're clearly exaggerating reality. It doesn't matter if you do or don't like it, the dictionary supports the alternative definition. People are not "wrong" to use it that way (though I still think they can use it poorly when there might be vague overlap, but I've never seen anyone do it in practice). Used figuratively, it can serve make a statement more intense. To say "they were literally as old as the hills!" adds more emphasis on their unnaturally old age, but no one is going to take that to mean their life actually extends far beyond the biological limitations of the human body in a real word context.Xanadu84 said:
Also, before you string up a bunch more ambiguous examples, yes, of course there are some situations where you wouldn't really be able to tell without clarification. My point was that there are POOR times to use the word figuratively, but that doesn't automatically mean people should stop using it in a figurative sense because people CAN use it at a bad time. I just don't see that happen. Occasionally I have seen it used ambiguously, but it's always been intentional for dramatic purposes.
Also, a long time of awkward rephrasing? Seriously?
"dude, I literally just jumped 20 feet in the air"
"wait, did you mean literally or figuratively?"
"yeah, literally" or "no, I was just exaggerating, it was more like 4 feet, but anyway yadda yadda"
that would be the extent of it, even though I've never actually had to see a conversation like that happen, since people know you can't jump 20 feet into the air.
Interestingly, I took those examples from assorted Google searches, and in fact the person DID mean figuratively when talking about throwing to the wolves. So in your cherry picking the most obvious from context examples, you still managed to arrive at a false conclusion because of misuse of the word literally. Other examples on that list are very much ambiguous. It would make perfect sense either literally or figuratively, and one was a real life misunderstanding branching from literally's ambiguity that I experienced directly. Using literally as the millionth generic intensifier only serves to make communicating the concept of, "In a literal sense" much more difficult.axlryder said:
As for you "Long time rephraseing" response, you miss the point. Now first of all, the fact that in the flow of conversation you have to bring the flow of the conversation to a grinding halt to specifically ask for clarification is irritating. Secondly, here is how that conversation would ACTUALLY go.
If the people understands how to use literally:
"I just literally jumped 20 feet into the air"
"Really? Holy crap, how did you manage that?"
"We set up this crazy See-Saw contraption next to the lake. I almost broke my neck but it was AWESOME"
"Rad"
If the first speaker doesn't understand how to use literally:
"I just literally jumped 20 feet into the air"
"Really? Holy Crap, how did you manage that?(Expects crazy story with a complicated set up to arrive at this unusual event)"
"Ive been working out. High jumps, that kinda stuff"
"...Oh...well that's a huge let down. So you jumped like, 2 feet"
"Well yeah, I didn't mean 20 feet like...literally"
"THEN DON'T SAY LITERALLY"
If the second speaker doesn't understand literally
"I just literally jumped 20 feet into the air"
"I don't care about how good at jumping you are"
"What the...dude, no one can jump 20 feet unassisted. I had this crazy see saw set up, it was a pretty incredible feat"
"What well, why didn't you tell me that you jumped like...you actually were physically propelled into the air a distance equal to 20 feet in a manner that enhanced the existing action of jumping?"
"I did."
Maybe some dictionary's accept literally as another generic intensifier. That's because lots of people do dumb things some times. Doesn't make using it in that way any less of a bad idea.
Homophobic. I just feel it's inaccurate. A lot of homosexuals are really nice, it would be silly to fear them. If you feel that homosexual behavior is immoral, and a lot of people do, those feelings aren't based on fear.
while I was not only not "cherry picking" (I'd just picked a couple of the examples to point out how they would normally be used), you can easily phrase things to suit an ambiguous meaning. Shitty over there? Who says that? Most people would say "there's a bunch of shit over there" if there was actually a bunch of shit over there. If there was shit on my doorstep I wouldn't say "my doorstep is literally shitty". I'd say "there's shit on my doorstep". The electrician, in this outrageous scenario, would say "there's fucking vipers down here!" or "you got vipers down here!" and so on. Most importantly though, you could generally take them to mean "literally" when they say it in those cases, since they have no real good reasons to use "literally" as an intensifier, but more so as clarification. If your wiring is super fucked, then it's super fucked. They don't need to convey that it's really super fucked. How could the environment be much shittier than the generic "shitty" WITHOUT containing actual shit? Perhaps they were using it figuratively, though, in which case I would agree that such figurative usage of the word is needless on top of commenting on their odd speaking habits.Xanadu84 said:
Also, consider how your wolf comment had zero context, and thus it makes sense that it would be fairly easy to misunderstand the meaning. There is no context beyond "generic historical figure". If I'd heard the story I could likely gather based on culture, geographical location, story up to that point, etc. For instance, if someone said "The man was hiking in the woods where he was attacked by bandits and then literally thrown the the wolves", well he probably got torn apart by wolves. If someone said "the business man was involved in some dirty business, but when he and his friends got caught by the law he was literally thrown to the wolves by them" I'd know he was probably just a patsy. That said, I don't see "literally thrown to the wolves" being a very good use of the phrase figuratively anyway, since it's an example so grounded in reality. Using it to exaggerate what happened is pointless if it's a believable occurrence. Like I've said since the beginning, there are good and bad ways to use it figuratively. I don't consider that a very good one. The same could be said of most of your examples and it's not in those scenarios where I typically see people using the word in a figurative sense. "literally as old as the hills" is much better, since it makes someone sound borderline impossibly old without making us believe they are that age. It also conjures up images in our heads that are more vivid due to the visual comparison with "literally". It works because it makes it seems as though the borders of reality are being stretched to compensate for this incredibly extreme instance, even though we know that not to be the case. It may also create humorous mental visuals that add to the flavor of the text. That's why I think the word words figuratively.
Also, you yourself seem to be missing the main point in dwelling on a nigh irrelevant example. I've told you that I've never seen such clarification happen because it wasn't needed. The fact that you said "long time of awkward rephrasing" just sounded melodramatic. "Break the flow of converation" would have sounded better. What's more, you're also including wacky story elements just to suit your meaning. The only part of that that I buy in your scenarios is the anal whiner going "DON'T SAY LITERALLY!", though he's also an idiot for not understanding basic context either. In the third example, the one guy is just incredibly stupid for taking the statement about jumping at face value, and in the first and third example the other guy doesn't seem to understand the difference between "jump" and "flung" which I consider a far graver problem. In an alternate universe where literally was never used as an intensifier, maybe such a misunderstanding word occur, but the word IS used that way and people can very easily figure it out based on context when it normally used figuratively. People don't jump 20 feet high, he was exaggerating, end of story. Even if the occasional misunderstanding does occur, it's that way with a lot of things in the English language, I think it's worth the trade off for an interesting way to use a word outside of its initial meaning.
Also, I find it funny that you can't even begin to acknowledge that literally can make a very good and potentially interesting intensifier due to the nature of its original meaning and instead say "no it must be dumb because I don't like it used that way!" and go so far as to declare that the jumper in the second example doesn't "understand how to use literally" when he used it perfectly acceptably. In regards to the definition, while it's true many semantic trends were bred from errors, people who originally used the word figuratively actually knew what "literally" initially meant, they chose to use it differently for creative purposes and were effective in doing so. Or perhaps you can argue that Twain and Fitzgerald just didn't know what they were doing. You can throw a ton more bad or awkwardly ambiguous figurative uses of it at me, but that in no way detracts from the interesting, colorful uses, and as long as those exist I see no reason to agree with you.
Yes, this isn't going anywhere. This is running into the world of ad hominen, I am well aware that you will find a way to be contrary regardless. The fact remains that if a word can mean either one thing or the exact opposite thing in countless scenarios where you CANNOT distinguish the difference from context, and the word itself MEANS that you shouldn't try to make an assumption on the meaning from context, that word becomes useless and confusing. Even in those situations where you might be able to figure out the most likely meaning, it's still as jarring and annoying as if someone randomly threw in the word, "Banana" into a sentence for no reason.axlryder said:
You apparently cannot account for the possibility that an event might happen where the most straightforward description would appear to be metaphor, hyperbole or the like. I'm sorry, that sounds very boring. But in the very common event that one must clarify that they intend to be taken in a literal sense, they need to use the word literally, and if its meaning becomes ambiguous, nothing but confusion can arise. And the only payoff for this alteration to the word is a billionth generic intensifier that itself suffers from ambiguity. It's sloppy, its irritating, it serves no purpose, and if it is widely accepted well hey, so is creationism. And i'm also done, seeing how this was supposed to be a fun little ranting thread where you talk about words that are your pet peeves.
No ad hominems here bro, I don't question the effects of intellectual or personal merit on the legitimacy of your views, merely your limited application of the word "literally" and potentially the personal ramifications of that. The fact also remains that those "countless scenarios" are nigh non-occurring in the real world and the word itself actually MEANS both potential definitions now. Most of the confusion would only arise when someone is taking a hyper-realistic approach to the word that doesn't mesh well with how people actually speak. The word itself can and is easily applied both ways without any confusion whatsoever. One finding it jarring must have trouble with a lot of Janus words, and you feeling the use of the word is really so arbitrary as randomly throwing in "banana" is also based on nothing but your seemingly limited views.Xanadu84 said:
I find your own preference to be boring, though, and I just happen to only take into account common real world scenarios, not specially crafted and awkwardly worded ones for the sake of being difficult (which are still rather easy to read if we're not making stuff up). Your continued appeals to the ambiguous nature of the duel definitions is still unconvincing, since there is generally a clear difference between when which use of the word is appropriate and thus being applied, ESPECIALLY with context. Your inability to see the creative purpose it serves just shows how close minded you've been throughout this whole debate, and you continuing to stay "but I don't like it so it's dumb" continues to hold as much water now as it did when we started, i.e., none. I have some of histories' greatest writers to back me on this. I highly doubt they were the uniformed dolts you seem to be claiming them to be.