We need a word for "literally" that doesn't also mean "not literally"
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.
147
Comments184
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.
The word they're looking for literally is "literally".
Yeah, 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.
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.
Linguistic drift happens over generations, this is just illiteracy
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I literally only use "literally" when I literally mean "literally".
Thank you
Bless you
Godspeed
i have a vague idea (that i can't prove) that people have started using 'objectively' for this purpose. i also think this is hastening objectively towards the same fate as literally. there is objectively nothing that can be done about this
The word “unironically” also seems to be serving a similar function
I've been liking "explicitly"
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.
All we can do is use the word correctly, and maybe, if you feel like it, correct other's use of it.
We've nearly lost "envy", and hundreds of other words due to people using words incorrectly. But, as we all know, language is as alive as the people who use it, and it changes right along with us.
A more interesting story, to me, is the discovery that we're all talking less and less:
In practical terms, that just pisses off your friends :(
Guess they'd better start using the word correctly
Would you rather be right or have friends? That's the tradeoff I've seen
I'd rather have friends that aren't stupid, barring that I'd be happy to accept friends who are maybe not the smartest but are willing to make small efforts to accomodate their friends even when they don't necessarily understand the logic behind the request. Quality over quantity.
"Like actually literally, for realz"
Best that I can do is, "non-figuratively." As in, "The power of the hurricane winds non-figuratively blew me away."
That non-figuratively rolls right off the tongue :D
You found the root cause.
The solution is vicious heckling of idiots who misuse it - treat them like a middle-school drop-out - until they fix their behavior. Do the same for people who pluralize mass nouns as well: trainings, supports (not used like struts), emails.
I tried that with "irony". People don't give a fuck, they just want to randomly use words to seem smart.
Make them feel dumb when you catch them at it
People who don't feel very dumb and just use random words aren't shamed by telling them they are dumb for using random words.
They just come back at you with the old speech "did you know language evolves 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔"
Linguistic drift happens over generations, that's just illiteracy, and if they're too stupid to feel shame they definitely don't know anything about that anyway
Are you enjoying this conversation with yourself LOL
Lol just fyi you're not me, if I were having a conversation with myself it wouldn't be half as stupid as this
"No cap fr fr"
Isn't that just figuratively?
It is
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
I guess OP is asking the opposite question. Renaming original literally with a new word instead of replacing current slang word literally
Sometimes the best way to show something as real is to say it plainly.
"They literally flew to Boston"
"They seriously flew to Boston"
"They actually flew to Boston"
Vs
"They flew to Boston"
Yes, that's why it bothers me that word "literally" is used for emphasis. I don't care how long it's been used that way, it robs the word of utility. The whole point of the word was to clarify that you mean literally when your words might otherwise be interpreted as figurative. Shit like this is why I'm unsure if people around me understand that I'm not exaggerating about the Untied States becoming a legitimate dictatorship committing holocaust level atrocities. I don't know how to communicate when I mean something literally and be sure people understand that I mean it literally and am not exaggerating
The word has been enshitified.
Those words are "frfr ong"
no cap
I trigger my kids by saying (verbally) fruh-fruh
I'm fine with descriptivism on theory, but it sure seems wrong in the cases where the word changes meaning due to people misunderstanding/misusing the word. That's not a a word gaining a new meaning, it's losing meaning.
The other one I need a replacement for is "begs the question" since so many people have misused that one too.
Words that mean “in fact” have been turning into “for emphasis” for literally a really very long time.
Edit: really means “in reality”, and very means “in truth”.
I Absolutely agree. It's Totally absurd, we Really need a new word.
I propose "dictionarily".
I'm against a new word, but I like this word
We should stop using adverbs
Just install an adverb blocker.
Hahahahahahaha
Precisely
That literally makes no sense.
The word is "acshully"
I've been using "genuinely" more and more in place of "literally" when I want to be, well, literal.
Language evolves.
"Ignorants" is literally not a word
"without exaggeration"
No cap
Without exaggeration, I ceased breathing and my heart stopped upon reading this commentary
Then they'll just make THAT one mean "not really literally", too.
-- Frost
"Unequivocally"
Until people start using this for equivocal things
"Verbatim" often works...
Literally literally
“Seriously” THE WORD. It’s not hard. There isn’t a “need” so much as a discipline and normal fucking intelligence.
"widely accepted"
Yeah, no. People who use it incorrectly simply don't understand language or meaning. Just because there's a lot of people who misuse the word doesn't mean it's widely accepted. A lot of people believe in a god, doesn't make it true.
Thats not how language works
Yes it is. Language and meaning don't simply change in 10-20 years unless forced upon (such as a conqueror forcing culture). Neologisms are a thing, and that's fine (though I would argue "bling" is a garbage word :) ), but using "literally" to mean "not literally" is redefining the whole purpose of the word in such a short context of time simply because of ignorance. Therefore, I assert what I argued already -- it's not widely accepted -- just widely misused.
As the kids say: fam this is dumb af.
Languages change all the time, kids practically make it their duty to introduce new words. "Bad" words become fine, others become real curse words you can't say without being branded a pos.
Also literally has had the double meaning since 1700
The misuse of language is literally one of the primary ways language evolves
Then that word will just get used sarcastically.
No cap fr fr
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.
"Actually" and "truly" and probably a few other synonyms already exist.
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
Fr fr
Configulatory
Sounds like a perfectly cromulent word.
Illiteratly
Exactly
I think we just need to be cutting off the fingers of dictionary editors one by one until they turn it back the way it should be.
Dictionary editors don't establish what is valid in English. English communicators do.
Well then there's about to be a lot of fingerless editors I guess.
By making them add the u’s back in?
"widely accepted' by me and my douche teenage friends
"Exactly". "Truly". "Literally, in the traditional sense not the post modern sense where it means emphatically or figuratively"
Or just improve your vocabulary.
You know of a word that satisfies OP's criteria and you're not going to share it?
It's not just one word. You use the appropriate adjective for the sentence. It's many words.
Or just leave out words like literally as they do
literallyabsolutely nothing.Obviously, you use the word that expresses what you intend to express. The question is what that word would be when you want to express "literally" in the strict dictionary definition sense without ambiguity.
Well, since it took the place of actually, why not use it?
Give me an example where using the word literally makes the sentence clearer. For the most part using the word literally is entirely unnecessary, and provides no value.
I don't understand where this question is coming from. The premise of this question is that "literally" is ambiguous. That its meaning is unclear. How does an ambiguous word add clarity to a sentence?
There was a time when Literally was the word we used to eliminate ambiguity. Using it to mean the opposite of its originally intended, and accepted, definition injects ambiguity, the very thing the word is supposed to prevent.
That's literally an example of IRONY (another often wrongly used word).
OP is asking how to solve a problem. You understand that repeating the problem does not answer the question, right?
"He spent the day literally watching paint dry," explains that he was watching the paint dry, and not just using a common idiomatic expression for laziness or boredom.
We had a perfectly good word, which people with decent vocabulary used properly, and then people with bad vocabulary ruined it.
Why should those who had a decent vocabulary in the first place improve theirs, instead of the people with the poor vocabulary who ruin the accepted definitions of words improve theirs?
I agree. The word "literally" was literally perfect. It was a binary descriptor. Other people's poor vocabulary ruined it, not the people who used it correctly.
We gotta stick together against the Vocabulary Philistines.
It’s not the product of having a bad vocabulary. The English language changes all the time. And “literally” not commonly being used in a figurative sense is relatively recent the figurative meaning dates back to the 1600s.
Mark Twain used the figurative literally. As did Emily Bronte, Charles Dickens, Louisa M. Alcott, and many more people widely considered to be among the best authors ever to have lived. I don’t think anybody has accused them of having poor vocabularies, or not using words “properly”
It even makes sense WRT the etymology, because it means “as in literature”, from the Latin “literalis” - “pertaining to words”
If you want to have a go at an intensifier for being used improperly, you’d do better to target “really”. It means “like reality”, from the Latin “realis” - “actual”
So a sentence like “I was really shitting myself” makes less sense than “I was literally shitting myself”, if we’re referencing fear rather than faeces
Well, sure, I'd want to see the exact context of the use. It would be one thing if Twain was using it that way himself, it would be another if he was putting it into a character's mouth, which would add a slight nuance.
A modern example would be the guy in Parks & Rec who used "Lit'rally" often, and with emphasis, in situations that were clearly NOT Literal. I wouldn't assume that the writer endorses the concept.
Twain:
Alcott:
Dickens:
And so on
Wow, you pulled those out, impressive! I really mean it!
I'm a big Mark Twain fan, and all it proves is that our idols can be wrong, LOL. I'm dying on this hill.
Wait ‘till i make the argument that “irregardless” is fine, actually..,
The correct answer is to make incorrect usage of the word "literally" socially unacceptable. Be fucking mean about it.
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.
"Literally" used as an intensifier dates back to the 1700s, but the prescriptivist controversy about it is very recent. People can understand that a word can have different meanings and have different uses. Except for prescriptivists, apparently.
That's the dopey example that they always use - Shakespeare made up all sorts of words - except it's clearly wrong, and you aren't Shakespeare, dummy.
Many words have immutable definitions, and they cannot be changed, period. UP cannot never mean DOWN no matter how many stupid people use it incorrectly. A DOG isn't a CAT, no matter how many stupid people can't tell the difference. The sky is Blue, even if you determine that you think it's Pink, and now Pink refers to all things Blue.
If people use an immutable word wrong, we shouldn't change the definition, we should tell the people using it wrong that they are wrong, and to stop being stupid.
We don't just agree to be as stupid as they are. That's what's wrong with the world. It's easier to go along with the stupid people, than expect them to get smarter. Or just tell them to shut the fuck up.
I quite properly literally just wish we didn't have a population that followed illiterate Kardashian misuse of the word.
It has been used that way for hundreds of years so we can't blame it on those social parasites.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally
I only rarely heard it misused before those maroons (and their ilk) popularized the misuse.
Probably. But it seems it exploded after that stupid show.
For real
People just put extra emphasis or say literally literally
No cap
Actually?
"Inflammable"
Actually, though.
While we're at it can we stop giving books and articles entitlements? I feel like being titled should be enough, I don't know why they need to be entitled.
Nah, we already have one.
Just because idiots misuse it...
"Exactly."
Aliterally?
If we come up with something in this thread, I'll be here to corrupt its meaning by misusing it.
Why? Does fungus need a reason to give you jock itch?
Why? In which situations would this be actually ambiguous and, in that set, in which situations would the disambiguation actually be necessary for some real reason?
Or just stop widely accepting the dual meaning.
How do you accomplish that?
“You” has to be a general you not a specific you.
Bullying mostly
frfr /s
I will repeat literally twice to convey i mean actually literally. "No, it's literally literally green".
Nope.
I would argue that, uses of literally, in the literal sense, in common language, is rarely used, any more. Mostly because, If you have to add "believe me" at the end of your sentence, it makes you seem sus. And "literally", in common language, is usually added to the end, in the same way, the sarcastic, and facetious, presentations use. So we've adopted different signifiers, mostly, anyway. People usually say, "you are not going to believe what happened to me today ". Even the sarcastic etc uses are dying out, in a time when, extreme positions aren't, easily taken at face value for being over the top, or, easily definable as sarcasm etc, which is what sarcasm relies heavily on. I think, all the extreme stuff going on, is making it almost impossible to even use literally, in almost either application. I'm sad! It's such a fun word to say.
I agree with what you're saying but your commas are literally killing me.
Yeah sorry man. My bad. I had had no coffee, at that particular time.
Stop reading, so fast, and the. inertia: wont hurt; you ?! when,;:. you stop*'";'?!
I used to use a lot more commas, to make my writing sound more like speaking, but it interrupts the flow of the thought. I've found that it's often better to just keep on flowing, and only use commas for major clauses, or for side thoughts that are still relevant enough to not use parentheses. Also to separate thoughts so they don't get mixed together.
When I end up with a paragraph like this, I'll start editing our commas, and perhaps rearrange my thoughts.
Yeah, my job involves grammaticizing (my word) the spoken word, and I need to sometimes remind myself that just because a person speaks the comma, it doesn't mean there is a comma. It's definitely easy to want to vibe (to use the vernacular) commas places, though.
Actually…. Oh wait that one is almost on the list too by now.
iliterally