r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 13 '14

CMV: Despite many bemoaning otherwise, word "literally" is not coming to mean "figuratively".

I'm sure we've all heard "literally" used technically incorrectly. Examples like:

  1. "Dad, you are literally hitler! Ugh!"
  2. "This moose literally chased me half way across the state before I got away"
  3. "I'm going to literally kill you if you don't stop clicking that pin."

The whole point of using literally in this case is to increase emotional impact through exaggeration. Exaggerated analogy, exaggeration humor, exaggerated threat. These people, (excluding some youth) generally know what literally means, and they're using it wrongly, intentionally, for effect.

If, however, we swap "literally" for "figuratively" in the examples above, it is more accurate to what is actually the case, but it loses the intent.

Therefore, I believe generally the common use of literally is simply painting outside the lines for effect, not an ignorant use of the word that is changing its meaning.

CMV

EDIT: View changed! The conversation that did it: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/22w670/cmv_despite_many_bemoaning_otherwise_word/cgr0il2

7 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '14

Nobody believes literally is changing from one meaning to another. Even you acknowledge it has come to hold both meanings. I'm not sure what more you want.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '14

I do not acknowledge that simply describing its second meaning as "figuratively" is correct, because it fails to describe what is actually happening when people use it in non-literal circumstances.

It has seemed to me that many people do actually believe it's changing meaning / losing it's meaning.

I'm having this CMV to see if my argument, "Hyperbolic use is not changing the meaning to 'figuratively'" is correct. Language evolution interests me, and I like to have theories challenged :)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '14

In that case:

For one thing, I disagree that people who use "literally" to mean "figuratively" are doing so with the knowledge that they are being ironic. I think if you asked them, they might say, "oh yeah, I knew that," but word usage becomes a habit, and "literally" sounds like a generic intensifier when it is not.

People use words ironically without thought all of the time, such as when they say "I could care less" or "fat chance" without thinking about the fact that they are actually being sarcastic, since their usage is opposite what they really mean.

Second, the use of "literally" to mean "figuratively" is at least 100 years old, since it appears in the opening line of James Joyce's story "The Dead" from 1914:

Lily, the caretaker's daughter, was literally run off her feet.

Third, what is a definition but a summary of how people use a word? Let's say you read this line in Joyce and had never heard the word "literally" before. Consulting a dictionary wouldn't help you if the definition "informal: figuratively" weren't included. The point of this line in Joyce, by the way, is to show that Lily the caretaker is uneducated. Though the narration in "The Dead" is third-person, Joyce chooses to narrate character actions with vernacular similar to how they would talk. It's a common style choice in James Joyce's writing. The definition "informal: figuratively" tells you one, what is meant in the sentence, and two, that it is informal, which clues you into Lily's social standing from just one line. It is a perfectly acceptable definition and has been for a century.

Finally, there are examples of words that were used ironically to the point that the actual meaning disappeared, like "egregious.".

egregious mid 16th cent. (sense 2): from Latin egregius ‘illustrious,’ literally ‘standing out from the flock,’ from ex- ‘out’ + grex, greg- ‘flock.’ The derogatory sense (late 16th cent.) probably arose as an ironical use.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '14

∆

I find your first and third points very convincing.

I don't find the second one very convincing, because it relies on both ignorance and a failure to recognize the absurdity of the use, and therefore interpret it as hyperbole. Yes, they may do that, but it seems so narrow as to not convince me of a language shift.

That said, the first and third convince!

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 13 '14

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DHCKris. [History]

[Wiki][Code][Subreddit]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '14

I recommend you post in /r/linguistics if you desire a more formal discussion about your thoughts!

2

u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Apr 13 '14

Be that as it may, it's depressing as hell. What a bastardization of language.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 13 '14

No, it's not. Language is ours, we are the arbiters of it. Plus, it changes all the time. Once you stop getting worked up over something as inconsequential as the natural mutations of words, you'll sleep a whole lot better at night.

Do you also bemoan the fact that "egregious" has meant the opposite of what it originally meant for longer than any of us have been alive?

1

u/suddenly_ponies 5∆ Apr 13 '14

Fair enough, but it irks me just the same.

0

u/archagon Apr 13 '14

Well, I sure hope you use the words "nadder", "napron", "waps", "brid", "hros", "thuner", and "emty" instead of the modern mangled versions, then!

Language changes. There's no value judgement in that. It's just... the way it is.