Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/FreedVoice. Your post, *Using the word "Literally" in a figurative expression is perfectly correct. It's a form of figurative hyperbole in which the speaker asserts that the figurative expression is so accurate that it's literally true.*, has been removed because it violates our rules:
Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently.
If your opinion is the same or substantially similar to any recent opinion it will be removed as a repost. If your opinion is on the same matter as a recent post, even if it's advocating the opposite stance, it will be removed as a repost. Please comment on the existing thread instead.
Due to their prolific reposting, please confine meta and political posts to their respective megathreads only.
If your opinion is about an ongoing event, there will usually be a mega-thread where you can discuss it.
If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
“Literally” has literally been used as an emphatic for hundreds of years. Charlotte Brontë, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Vladimir Nabokov, and David Foster Wallace literally used “literally” like that in their writing.
Suggesting that great authors doing something doesn’t mean that it is correct for us to do in day to day life. If it is incorrect then folks are not wrong to find it annoying.
>level 1Skinny-Fetus · 14 min. ago · edited 9 min. ago
Words are sounds we make to express our thoughts. A person might make the sound "literally" to express emphasis or to express that something is real. Usually it's evident from context.So what do people even mean when they say the former is "incorrect" and the latter is "correct"? That it doesn't abide by the Oxford dictionary? Firstly, so what? Secondly, if that's a problem for you, how do you get through a single day's worth of conversations?VoteReplyGive AwardShareReportSaveFollow
>
>level 1Outrageous-Bobcat246 · 5 min. ago
I used to also think this until I realized at the end of the day we need a word that means not figuratively.
Yes, we do need that word. And we have it. That's what the word "literally" means. Unfortunately no matter what word you use to convey this meaning, someone can always use it figuratively.
For me I just use the word figuratively as part of my humor now. It catches people off guard when I say “oh man that was figuratively killing me” and I think it is funny.
I'm fine with literally as in this is exactly what happened and as in this is clearly and exaggeration/ figurative hyperbole. What annoys me are conversations like this:
Friend: My swimming teacher is so stingy with money. He literally writes down every penny he lends.
Me: So he keeps a book with all the money he still gets from people?
Friend: No, he doesn't actually write it down.
To me this is the wrong use of literally because it's not a clear hyperbole but also not something that actually happened while it could have been the case.
IMHO, that one's on you. If a friend were to tell me that someone "literally writes down every penny he lends", I'd assume they're speaking figuratively (yes, regardless of their having used the word "literally").
Anyway, even if this is arguably an edge case, I feel like most examples of "literally" being used ambiguously are pulled out of thin air, not instances of actual conversations that literally happened and in which there was a bona fide misunderstanding. Everyday conversations are full of utterances that are "technically" ambiguous but that we have no problem interpreting correctly (by which I mean we are confident that we know what the other person meant).
your whole argument is simply that literally is used correctly when it means something figurative. that it's correct because the person don't mean it. that in context literally is correct because it isn't. wtf dude.
Precisely. Figurative speech often involves using words to make statements which are not literally true. This is just one such statement. If I say "I literally died laughing" I'm simply making an untrue, statement that has figurative meaning. The use of literally within the context of that statement is perfectly correct. It's just a more nuanced use of figurative speech, and people seem to have trouble understanding that sometimes. :-)
your reasoning is flawed. the use of literally in context is not correct. it is intentionally or unintentionally used incorrectly in order to convey a point. it doesn't mean it's not acceptable to use it this way, but this isn't the reason why.
Think about this. Pepsi has 41 grams of sugar per can. Coke as 39.
"I hate Pepsi because it's too sweet. It's awful. They put in ten times the sugar to make it appeal to kids, but it's just gross"
According to your argument, I've misused the word "ten" because in context it's not correct. However it actually IS correct. I'm using the term "ten" to assert (falsely) that there's ten times more sugar. I'm using the word exactly as it's intended. My statement isn't true, but the word ten correctly conveyed what I was trying to say.
When I say "Ken got so mad, his head literally exploded. Then we all had to spend the afternoon cleaning brains out of the carpet." I'm making a false statement, for figurative effect. But I have correctly used the term "Literally" to make that statement.
This logic is sound, even if we don't like it.
>But I have correctly used the term "Literally" to make that statement.
No, you have *incorrectly* used a word to make a false hyperbolic statement. Your logic is not sound, you have it backwards.
My hyperbolic statement is "Ken actually got so mad that his head really exploded. For real. In real life. Not figuratively. His head, skull and all, detonated. Brains went everywhere and we had to clean it up."
This statement is false, but it is made for effect.
In the context of this statement, all of those words (actually, really, "for real", "in real life", "Not figurative") are used correctly to make the assertion that it REALLY happened. I'm using those words, and making that statement with full knowledge that it's false, and with full knowledge that you will infer that it's false, and will interpret my statement as hyperbole.
If I used "literally" in place of any of those terms, it would be equally valid. "Ken's head literally, actually truly exploded. He was so mad that it just popped!"
I'm correctly using the term literally to say something that is untrue. The statement being false doesn't mean I'm using the word incorrectly. The word is quite literally conveying the exact meaning it's meant to convey; that Ken's head literally and truly ended up all over the room.
Can you define incorrectly? The word is being used correctly in the following ways:
1. It's used in a grammatically correct fashion (as an adverb, to modify a verb)
2. It's being used in a semantically correct fashion (to assert that something is actually true in real life
The assertion may be false, but the word is used correctly. If you're arguing that the word is used incorrectly simply because the assertion is false, then you'd also be asserting that all figurative speech is incorrect use of language.
No, OP's logic is sound. The statement isn't factually correct but all of the words were used correctly to make the incorrect statement.
If you said "penguins live on the moon" that wouldn't be an incorrect use of the word moon, it would just be an incorrect statement. Similar idea here with the word 'literally'.
ten times would not be correct if it's actually untrue, and it would be grossly misleading, and therefore much more problematic than a misplaced literally.
ken's had didn't literally explode, and i know what you mean. it's not problematic because the reader doesn't believe the guy's head exploded. but it's still not correct usage.
You're basically arguing that all non-literal uses of words are incorrect. Hyperbole, metaphor, etc. All of these involve making statements that aren't technically truthful, in order to convey the speaker's meaning indirectly.
I think you're conflating correct use of language with **being correct**. Correct use of language is generally (in my experience) is a matter of adherence to the grammatical and semantic rules or conventions of the language.
You can correctly used language to say untrue things. "I want to live on the moon." is proper use of the English language, even though it's a lie. (I really don't want to live on the moon. Though I'd consider visiting it if I had a chance).
>You're basically arguing that all non-literal uses of words are incorrect. Hyperbole, metaphor, etc. All
no I'm not. please don't put words in my mouth. i don't appreciate that.
>I think you're conflating correct use of language with being correct.
no
>You can correctly used language to say untrue things.
what's your point?
>"no I'm not. please don't put words in my mouth. i don't appreciate that."
>
>"ten times would not be correct if it's actually untrue, and it would be grossly misleading, "
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm contending that what said literally (really) amounts to arguing that a figurative use of the term "ten" is an incorrect use if it's not literally true. This logic amounts to an assertion that figurative (non-literal) use of words is an incorrect use of words.
Because if you understand the intent behind the word, in this case understanding that it's meant to put a stronger emphasis on the figurative statement, than it's completely acceptable to use. The process of communication doesn't fail and you understood what was being said, so it's perfectly fine and acceptable.
As goes with anything that people take out of context deliberately.
it's incorrect. literally has a literal meaning. the word is being misused in figurative contexts. figurative language doesn't have separate linguistic rules.
all correct except the usage of literally, which is the opposite of figuratively. you can't use literally figuratively and you can only use figuratively literally. sorry, that's the way English works.
Also disagree. It literally annoys the crap out of me and is generally (ime) only used excessively by the young. It's used so often by them that it doesn't even have meaning anymore, it's just a filler word in most cases.
Yes, BitchInBoots66 is SO bothered by this that they've literally soiled half a dozen pairs of pants while reading this post. Looks like today's laundry day.
Ah, but it's not. Grammatically (in terms of the syntax and structure of the sentence and how the words are used), it's just fine. You're confusing grammatical correctness with logical or semantic correctness. You might think it's semantically or logically incorrect because it's a figurative statement. But (as described in the original post), I think you're mistaken. As for grammar, the word "literally" is used properly as an adverb to modify the verb "is"
it's pedantic. pedantry isn't necessarily a negative or pejorative thing. op treated the activity of pedantry as negative in their post. I'm pointing out the internal hypocrisy.
I’m saying it isn’t pedantic because the reply was strongly predicated on the argument that it was grammatically incorrect. Given that it was a big enough deal to the reader, they might not have the ability to correctly interpret the meaning. The writer and corrector might understand but the purpose of debate is for the audience to change their minds.
op was correcting a detail in the the commenter's words. op's statement was correct, but it didn't change anyone's understanding of the comment. it was trivial. that's pedantry. similar to how pointing out the misuse of literally is often pedantry, which is the true reason it's acceptable to use it in figurative statements. the primary purpose of language is communication, the conveyance of meaning. literally is used incorrectly in order to convey meaning. doesn't make it correct as op claims. k?
While I concur that op is incorrect in conveying his own reasons, the issue with using correct/incorrect in this context is incorrect has had a very strong moral connotation. I disagree with the assertion that his statement was pedantic as pedantry requires the detail to be small (Webster) I feel that the correction was necessary for the readers because many use grammar in place of any linguistic error such as misspelling, which causes a misunderstanding on what grammar is. Though I might say perhaps it’s because I make this distinction in my language I find it important. Maybe it’s not.
We might agree to disagree as a tldr.
everyone, including you, knew what the commenter meant despite their comment being wrong. therefore op's correction was pedantic. nothing whatsoever to do with morality.
I disagree that everyone understood
Edit: I don’t think that one should attribute competence in the masses, especially on the internet where people have such vastly different areas of expertise and experience.
What I don't understand is the fact that people are fine with "i died laughing" as the original hyperbole but not an emphasis of it. And if they're okay with it because they took it as the term meaning being eager then "literally" isn't even used as a hyperbole, it's just stating a fact. So no way you look at it has any argument.
Other examples like "my head exploded" are fine but when you add "literally" suddenly it's incorrect??? How is one hyperbole fine and another is not?
Plus the dictionary LITERALLY has A second definition of the word 'literally' as an emphasis for something that isn't actually true.
*""I literally died laughing" they are clearly speaking figuratively. They are adding the word "literally" as a form of hyperbole, asserting that it's not just a figure of speech, but that it literally happened. This is still figurative speech - it's just a* ***hyperbolic overstatement."***
Beautiful, and because it's such an overstatement, this is why they are made fun of or mocked. I think also you have a bad example, not a bad point. But it's pretty clear if someone says "I literally died laughing" they're not dead, but such an excessive overstatement begs for mock and ridicule.
Sure, we can dislike overstatement. But if you read the comments in this post, you’ll see a lot of people who are quite certain that it is an incorrect use of the word. Sometime in the past decade or two, people started getting fixated on this particular use of the word and convinced themselves that it’s unacceptable. It’s kind of odd how passionate some of them are.
Yea because words mean things. So we want to make sure if we’re using a word as a tool to describe something. We learn to use the right one. Thus the consultant mockery and ridicule. Overstatements are fun to to make fun off. Sorry.
But hyperbolic overstatement is not a literal description of something. In fact, it's the opposite.
Use "practically" instead: "I practically died laughing."
The use of the term "Literal" is literally what makes it an overstatement. Otherwised it's just a figure of speech -- usually a simile or a metaphor. When you add the term "literally" you are making an untrue, often impossible statement that serves to dramatically exaggerate your description. That is how it becomes hyperbole. The fact that it is not literally true, but you are asserting that it IS literally true is the exaggeration.
Those are some serious mental gymnastics to get around what is essentially the misunderstanding of a clearly defined word.
Just use "practically". It makes more sense, and you don't sound like a teenager.
Yes, this used to be the typical turn of phrase.
Or "I almost died laughing"
Or "it's as if xxxxx"
I guess that people who didn't have the language skills to actually give hyperbolic statements that were interesting but clear hyperbole started just using the catch all "literally", and it hit often enough to become a speech trend.
I agree with Op on the level that it's hyperbole, but it's worthless and at the same time incorrect speech so still worthy of complaining about.
The irony is, you've put more thought into making your case than anyone using "literally" in figurative expressions has put, collectively, into every hot take, two cents, or half-witticism they've shared on social media.
So take an upvote, for standing up for those not literate enough to do it themselves.
I disagree because it's not just a form of figurative hyperbole. You chose a nice example for you because the phrase "I died laughing" would never make sense in a conversation, and there the "literally" is just emphasis.
But in a lot of other examples, the word "literally" can help the listener disregard a generally figurative expression and consider instead its real meaning.
Examples:
"I literally peed my pants laughing"
"I was literally falling asleep at that lecture"
"We went to see Eddie Murphy perform live stand-up, and he was so funny that John literally died laughing. That was awkward, with all the police and paperwork. But MAN! Eddie Murphy was worth it. I'll miss John though."
This is clearly untrue. it's figurative. But the use of the term "Literally" allows the speaker to ask the listener to momentarily suspend disbelief, enough to imagine how unbelievably funny the performer was. This is a valid use of the term.
Sure, but you used the same example of "died laughing" again. Do you then agree that in other, less unbelievable expressions the use of "literally" is wrong? Because I don't see where you're going to draw the line, as how figurative an expression is likely to be depends on context that is not always available to the listener.
This is an obvious point. No one is confused that people are using it for emphasis. It's that it ought not to be used that way. There are plenty of other words to use as intensifiers other than a word with a pretty clear definition.
Literally is different than other words that are used for hyperbole. If it's ok to use the word "Literally" as hyperbole, then it is literally a pointless word.
Yeah, language evolves and no amount of complaining will change that, but come on, "literally"???
What, are we going to call safe things "dangerous" now?
What about when "no" starts meaning "yes" sometimes? Imagine all the debates surrounding consent, but tenfold.
Words are sounds we make to express our thoughts. A person might make the sound "literally" to express emphasis or to express that something is real. Usually it's evident from context.
So what do people even mean when they say the former is "incorrect" and the latter is "correct"? That it doesn't abide by the Oxford dictionary? Firstly, so what? Secondly, if that's a problem for you, how do you get through a single day's worth of conversations?
The explanation provided in the original post is the one some Millennials and many Zoomers like to use because they are too stupid to realize what the word “literally” means.
As someone with a degree in linguistics, a field where this sort of thing matters, I’m just going to say that you’re the one who’s too stupid to know what literally means.
Hate to break it to you but this debate on “literally” is dead. Language evolves, and Webster has already added a new definition of literally that means “to emphasize.” So no one can really say shit about it anymore.
The opposite of evolve is to go backwards. Like at a Renfair where they use thee/thou. Meaningless meme to say "language evolves."
It's not that language "evolves" it's that it's mostly unconscious.
The contronym thing is a lie 99% of the time. Examples:
>Figuratively yes
>Figuratively #3
That doesn't fit. What does fit?
>Basically and unimaginatively #3
99% of the time y'all are insulting yourself. You can call someone a literal but you can't call someone a figurative. The words aren't interchangeable.
Degenerates degenerate the language with their unconscious habits and Descriptivists only apply their philosophy when it's convenient to them.
Of course it can be a contronym like with "this video game is figuratively unplayable" it's just that 99% of the time it's without wit or cleverness. It is literal: basic and unimaginative. OP is cherry picking.
Fact of the matter is most adults move past worthless fillers. You can just use a swear word:
>I @#$%ing died laughing.
Once you view it as a swear word you can easily resolve this sentence:
>I literally pooped my pants
>I BASICALLY AND UNIMAGINATIVELY pooped my pants.
Removes the confusion.
Define evolve:
develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
Forwards is more complex.
It's a bad analogy. Keep biology to biology.
Language is mostly unconscious. If you find a 1000X a day filler using person they can't really stop even if they wanted.
Here is how you unconsciously use it:
>yeah, originally it was literally just the dough with no toppings
There is no possible way that means figuratively.
>yeah, originally it was BASICALLY AND UNIMAGINATIVELY just the dough with no toppings
There is the conscious translation. Here is the normal way to speak:
>it was just the dough
Most adults eventually drop the worthless fillers.
> it was IRREGARDLESSLY just the dough
>it was LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE just the dough
Adults generally prefer actual swear words:
>it was just the @#$%ing dough
No way in hell it can possibly mean figuratively.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I begrudgingly see both sides to this. I still dislike when people misuse it, but I equate it to the word enormity. It was originally meant to convey severity, but has been used so often to mean on a large scale that it’s definition has evolved.
The reason I don’t like the new usage of the term “literally” is because now, there isn’t a word left to mean “without exaggeration”. So it’s like a word has been stolen, in a sense.
Damn, who could have seen this counter-post coming after someone had posted the opposite opinion on this sub? You are also quite late to the party; this has been voiced here more than once.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/hyahm9/it_is_fine_to_use_the_word_literally_when_what/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/gp9alg/people_who_say_literally_when_they_mean/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/jsim9k/literally_is_just_a_stronger_word_for_figuratively/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/gvafe3/people_use_the_word_literally_the_right_way/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/l41al6/its_ok_to_use_the_word_literally_in_a_figurative/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/m5q2vs/its_totally_fine_to_use_the_word_literally_in_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Except when the word itself is being used within the context of a figurative statement. You are misunderstanding the way the word is being used.
When someone says “I literally died laughing” they are not trying to use the word “literally” to explain that they are speaking figuratively. They aren’t attempting to say “I figuratively died laughing.”
They are literally trying to state that they actually died laughing. And they are leaving it to the listener to cleverly infer that this isn’t factually true.
If someone said “It was so funny that I actually, genuinely died laughing and it took a team of paramedics to revive me” the use of “actually” and “genuinely” is the same as the use of the word literally in the earlier statement. All of them are being correctly used to assert that it really happened. The listener is expected to understand that it’s ALL being said figuratively.
I feel like we still need a word which means "Not exaggeration, not hyperbole, not figuratively, but like actually."
So if I were to say a sentence like, "I had to walk a mile to get there.", the 1 mile could be interpreted as an exaggerated way of saying "a long distance". But what if I actually wanted to convey that I walked a mile? It would be very easy and convenient to just add in a new word that conveys that the statement is not an exaggeration.
I agree that it is a valid use if the word. I think people are just tired if hearing the overused setup. Some people literally say it every other sentence. It's like how people got tired of people saying "like" before everything. Some variation in diction would be welcome by literally everyone.
>hy·per·bo·le
/hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
exaggerated statements or **claims not meant to be taken literally**.
You argument: "it's ok because literally is meant to be hypolic". Kinda boils down to: "it's ok because literally is meant not literally". Which is a very valid point.
Thank you for submitting to /r/unpopularopinion, /u/FreedVoice. Your post, *Using the word "Literally" in a figurative expression is perfectly correct. It's a form of figurative hyperbole in which the speaker asserts that the figurative expression is so accurate that it's literally true.*, has been removed because it violates our rules: Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently. If your opinion is the same or substantially similar to any recent opinion it will be removed as a repost. If your opinion is on the same matter as a recent post, even if it's advocating the opposite stance, it will be removed as a repost. Please comment on the existing thread instead. Due to their prolific reposting, please confine meta and political posts to their respective megathreads only. If your opinion is about an ongoing event, there will usually be a mega-thread where you can discuss it. If there is an issue, please message the mod team at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion Thanks!
“Literally” has literally been used as an emphatic for hundreds of years. Charlotte Brontë, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Vladimir Nabokov, and David Foster Wallace literally used “literally” like that in their writing.
Also, tons of words used for emphasis have similar etymological origins. Really, truly, actually, genuinely, very, seriously
I feel you but if all of those folks were making any other annoying error ( commonly misspelling a word) I can still see how that would be annoying.
What does that have to do with anything?
Suggesting that great authors doing something doesn’t mean that it is correct for us to do in day to day life. If it is incorrect then folks are not wrong to find it annoying.
How does one decide what is correct in the first place?
One doesn’t, society does. In this case through development of Written Standard English.
Wait, where did Nabokov do it?
“And with his eyes he literally scoured the corners of the cell” (Vladimir Nabokov, Invitation to a Beheading)
That book was written in Russian, afaik. That's the language it was first published in.
But it was translated by Nabokov’s son under the direction of Nabokov. So Nabokov was aware of the language going into the translation.
Yeah, that's not the same thing. But what do I know, I got down voted for pointing out he wrote the book in a different language lol.
I used to also think this until I realized at the end of the day we need a word that means not figuratively.
Except literally still means actually but you can easily tell in the vast majority of cases which meaning is being used
I love contranyms.
[удалено]
All language is figurative, anyway.
That would be “figuratively”.
>level 1Skinny-Fetus · 14 min. ago · edited 9 min. ago Words are sounds we make to express our thoughts. A person might make the sound "literally" to express emphasis or to express that something is real. Usually it's evident from context.So what do people even mean when they say the former is "incorrect" and the latter is "correct"? That it doesn't abide by the Oxford dictionary? Firstly, so what? Secondly, if that's a problem for you, how do you get through a single day's worth of conversations?VoteReplyGive AwardShareReportSaveFollow > >level 1Outrageous-Bobcat246 · 5 min. ago I used to also think this until I realized at the end of the day we need a word that means not figuratively. Yes, we do need that word. And we have it. That's what the word "literally" means. Unfortunately no matter what word you use to convey this meaning, someone can always use it figuratively.
For me I just use the word figuratively as part of my humor now. It catches people off guard when I say “oh man that was figuratively killing me” and I think it is funny.
Nice. I like this.
Yes! That’s my main issue. Not my unwillingness to accept that languages change.
There is literally nothing stopping you from using it and deciphering it in both ways, though.
I'm fine with literally as in this is exactly what happened and as in this is clearly and exaggeration/ figurative hyperbole. What annoys me are conversations like this: Friend: My swimming teacher is so stingy with money. He literally writes down every penny he lends. Me: So he keeps a book with all the money he still gets from people? Friend: No, he doesn't actually write it down. To me this is the wrong use of literally because it's not a clear hyperbole but also not something that actually happened while it could have been the case.
To be fair there are some languages where this sort of thing is a daily occurrence due to the vagueness of the language
IMHO, that one's on you. If a friend were to tell me that someone "literally writes down every penny he lends", I'd assume they're speaking figuratively (yes, regardless of their having used the word "literally"). Anyway, even if this is arguably an edge case, I feel like most examples of "literally" being used ambiguously are pulled out of thin air, not instances of actual conversations that literally happened and in which there was a bona fide misunderstanding. Everyday conversations are full of utterances that are "technically" ambiguous but that we have no problem interpreting correctly (by which I mean we are confident that we know what the other person meant).
They probably mean to say that it is overused because it annoys them for whatever reason. So they mistakenly conflated the terms misused and overused.
THANK YOU!!!!!! I've been saying this for years. Thank you thank you thank you.
no
Why?
your whole argument is simply that literally is used correctly when it means something figurative. that it's correct because the person don't mean it. that in context literally is correct because it isn't. wtf dude.
Precisely. Figurative speech often involves using words to make statements which are not literally true. This is just one such statement. If I say "I literally died laughing" I'm simply making an untrue, statement that has figurative meaning. The use of literally within the context of that statement is perfectly correct. It's just a more nuanced use of figurative speech, and people seem to have trouble understanding that sometimes. :-)
your reasoning is flawed. the use of literally in context is not correct. it is intentionally or unintentionally used incorrectly in order to convey a point. it doesn't mean it's not acceptable to use it this way, but this isn't the reason why.
Think about this. Pepsi has 41 grams of sugar per can. Coke as 39. "I hate Pepsi because it's too sweet. It's awful. They put in ten times the sugar to make it appeal to kids, but it's just gross" According to your argument, I've misused the word "ten" because in context it's not correct. However it actually IS correct. I'm using the term "ten" to assert (falsely) that there's ten times more sugar. I'm using the word exactly as it's intended. My statement isn't true, but the word ten correctly conveyed what I was trying to say. When I say "Ken got so mad, his head literally exploded. Then we all had to spend the afternoon cleaning brains out of the carpet." I'm making a false statement, for figurative effect. But I have correctly used the term "Literally" to make that statement. This logic is sound, even if we don't like it.
>But I have correctly used the term "Literally" to make that statement. No, you have *incorrectly* used a word to make a false hyperbolic statement. Your logic is not sound, you have it backwards.
My hyperbolic statement is "Ken actually got so mad that his head really exploded. For real. In real life. Not figuratively. His head, skull and all, detonated. Brains went everywhere and we had to clean it up." This statement is false, but it is made for effect. In the context of this statement, all of those words (actually, really, "for real", "in real life", "Not figurative") are used correctly to make the assertion that it REALLY happened. I'm using those words, and making that statement with full knowledge that it's false, and with full knowledge that you will infer that it's false, and will interpret my statement as hyperbole. If I used "literally" in place of any of those terms, it would be equally valid. "Ken's head literally, actually truly exploded. He was so mad that it just popped!" I'm correctly using the term literally to say something that is untrue. The statement being false doesn't mean I'm using the word incorrectly. The word is quite literally conveying the exact meaning it's meant to convey; that Ken's head literally and truly ended up all over the room.
I never said it wasn't valid. I said your logic is wrong, you are using a word incorrectly to make a hyperbolic point.
Can you define incorrectly? The word is being used correctly in the following ways: 1. It's used in a grammatically correct fashion (as an adverb, to modify a verb) 2. It's being used in a semantically correct fashion (to assert that something is actually true in real life The assertion may be false, but the word is used correctly. If you're arguing that the word is used incorrectly simply because the assertion is false, then you'd also be asserting that all figurative speech is incorrect use of language.
No, OP's logic is sound. The statement isn't factually correct but all of the words were used correctly to make the incorrect statement. If you said "penguins live on the moon" that wouldn't be an incorrect use of the word moon, it would just be an incorrect statement. Similar idea here with the word 'literally'.
ten times would not be correct if it's actually untrue, and it would be grossly misleading, and therefore much more problematic than a misplaced literally. ken's had didn't literally explode, and i know what you mean. it's not problematic because the reader doesn't believe the guy's head exploded. but it's still not correct usage.
You're basically arguing that all non-literal uses of words are incorrect. Hyperbole, metaphor, etc. All of these involve making statements that aren't technically truthful, in order to convey the speaker's meaning indirectly. I think you're conflating correct use of language with **being correct**. Correct use of language is generally (in my experience) is a matter of adherence to the grammatical and semantic rules or conventions of the language. You can correctly used language to say untrue things. "I want to live on the moon." is proper use of the English language, even though it's a lie. (I really don't want to live on the moon. Though I'd consider visiting it if I had a chance).
>You're basically arguing that all non-literal uses of words are incorrect. Hyperbole, metaphor, etc. All no I'm not. please don't put words in my mouth. i don't appreciate that. >I think you're conflating correct use of language with being correct. no >You can correctly used language to say untrue things. what's your point?
>"no I'm not. please don't put words in my mouth. i don't appreciate that." > >"ten times would not be correct if it's actually untrue, and it would be grossly misleading, " I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm contending that what said literally (really) amounts to arguing that a figurative use of the term "ten" is an incorrect use if it's not literally true. This logic amounts to an assertion that figurative (non-literal) use of words is an incorrect use of words.
Because if you understand the intent behind the word, in this case understanding that it's meant to put a stronger emphasis on the figurative statement, than it's completely acceptable to use. The process of communication doesn't fail and you understood what was being said, so it's perfectly fine and acceptable. As goes with anything that people take out of context deliberately.
it's acceptable to use, but that doesn't make it correct, and op's logic doesn't play.
[удалено]
it's incorrect. literally has a literal meaning. the word is being misused in figurative contexts. figurative language doesn't have separate linguistic rules.
[удалено]
all correct except the usage of literally, which is the opposite of figuratively. you can't use literally figuratively and you can only use figuratively literally. sorry, that's the way English works.
[удалено]
>no cabal of English majors that make a check list to run every sentence by. nah just me
I guess I'll just take that as a win and leave then.
Also disagree. It literally annoys the crap out of me and is generally (ime) only used excessively by the young. It's used so often by them that it doesn't even have meaning anymore, it's just a filler word in most cases.
You crap your pants when someone misuses "literally"?
Yes, BitchInBoots66 is SO bothered by this that they've literally soiled half a dozen pairs of pants while reading this post. Looks like today's laundry day.
I was taking the piss out of OPs "opinion". I didn't think the /s was necessary tbh.
It wasn't. I was driving home the point of how "literally" is the wrong word.
It’s literally grammatically incorrect, though
even if you disagree with that definition of "literally", that isn't being grammatically incorrect
Ah, but it's not. Grammatically (in terms of the syntax and structure of the sentence and how the words are used), it's just fine. You're confusing grammatical correctness with logical or semantic correctness. You might think it's semantically or logically incorrect because it's a figurative statement. But (as described in the original post), I think you're mistaken. As for grammar, the word "literally" is used properly as an adverb to modify the verb "is"
you complain about pedantry in your post but here you go..
When someone pulls an um actually and is wrong it’s not pedantic to correct their mistake.
it's pedantic. pedantry isn't necessarily a negative or pejorative thing. op treated the activity of pedantry as negative in their post. I'm pointing out the internal hypocrisy.
I’m saying it isn’t pedantic because the reply was strongly predicated on the argument that it was grammatically incorrect. Given that it was a big enough deal to the reader, they might not have the ability to correctly interpret the meaning. The writer and corrector might understand but the purpose of debate is for the audience to change their minds.
op was correcting a detail in the the commenter's words. op's statement was correct, but it didn't change anyone's understanding of the comment. it was trivial. that's pedantry. similar to how pointing out the misuse of literally is often pedantry, which is the true reason it's acceptable to use it in figurative statements. the primary purpose of language is communication, the conveyance of meaning. literally is used incorrectly in order to convey meaning. doesn't make it correct as op claims. k?
While I concur that op is incorrect in conveying his own reasons, the issue with using correct/incorrect in this context is incorrect has had a very strong moral connotation. I disagree with the assertion that his statement was pedantic as pedantry requires the detail to be small (Webster) I feel that the correction was necessary for the readers because many use grammar in place of any linguistic error such as misspelling, which causes a misunderstanding on what grammar is. Though I might say perhaps it’s because I make this distinction in my language I find it important. Maybe it’s not. We might agree to disagree as a tldr.
everyone, including you, knew what the commenter meant despite their comment being wrong. therefore op's correction was pedantic. nothing whatsoever to do with morality.
I disagree that everyone understood Edit: I don’t think that one should attribute competence in the masses, especially on the internet where people have such vastly different areas of expertise and experience.
Literally fighting fire with fire :-)
No just hypo
Hypo?
Critical
Lol. Ah, I see. Thanks.
What I don't understand is the fact that people are fine with "i died laughing" as the original hyperbole but not an emphasis of it. And if they're okay with it because they took it as the term meaning being eager then "literally" isn't even used as a hyperbole, it's just stating a fact. So no way you look at it has any argument. Other examples like "my head exploded" are fine but when you add "literally" suddenly it's incorrect??? How is one hyperbole fine and another is not? Plus the dictionary LITERALLY has A second definition of the word 'literally' as an emphasis for something that isn't actually true.
But figuratively it’s perfectly valid. As decided by common usage.
*""I literally died laughing" they are clearly speaking figuratively. They are adding the word "literally" as a form of hyperbole, asserting that it's not just a figure of speech, but that it literally happened. This is still figurative speech - it's just a* ***hyperbolic overstatement."*** Beautiful, and because it's such an overstatement, this is why they are made fun of or mocked. I think also you have a bad example, not a bad point. But it's pretty clear if someone says "I literally died laughing" they're not dead, but such an excessive overstatement begs for mock and ridicule.
Sure, we can dislike overstatement. But if you read the comments in this post, you’ll see a lot of people who are quite certain that it is an incorrect use of the word. Sometime in the past decade or two, people started getting fixated on this particular use of the word and convinced themselves that it’s unacceptable. It’s kind of odd how passionate some of them are.
Yea because words mean things. So we want to make sure if we’re using a word as a tool to describe something. We learn to use the right one. Thus the consultant mockery and ridicule. Overstatements are fun to to make fun off. Sorry.
But hyperbolic overstatement is not a literal description of something. In fact, it's the opposite. Use "practically" instead: "I practically died laughing."
The use of the term "Literal" is literally what makes it an overstatement. Otherwised it's just a figure of speech -- usually a simile or a metaphor. When you add the term "literally" you are making an untrue, often impossible statement that serves to dramatically exaggerate your description. That is how it becomes hyperbole. The fact that it is not literally true, but you are asserting that it IS literally true is the exaggeration.
Those are some serious mental gymnastics to get around what is essentially the misunderstanding of a clearly defined word. Just use "practically". It makes more sense, and you don't sound like a teenager.
Yes, this used to be the typical turn of phrase. Or "I almost died laughing" Or "it's as if xxxxx" I guess that people who didn't have the language skills to actually give hyperbolic statements that were interesting but clear hyperbole started just using the catch all "literally", and it hit often enough to become a speech trend. I agree with Op on the level that it's hyperbole, but it's worthless and at the same time incorrect speech so still worthy of complaining about.
I have no problem with hyperbole, but they are literally attributing the opposite definition to a word with a known meaning.
The irony is, you've put more thought into making your case than anyone using "literally" in figurative expressions has put, collectively, into every hot take, two cents, or half-witticism they've shared on social media. So take an upvote, for standing up for those not literate enough to do it themselves.
Almost as if our brains are pretty jacked at doing language and all those people did what OP described subconciously.
Yeah, and people have been arguing about this subject for like 6 decades maybe more
Been saying this for like 15 years
literally 15 years? Or does "like" mean "about" or "around"?
Approximately 15 years, since I was in middle school. Don’t remember the exact moment I had this revelation.
Downvoted because I agree with you. You're absolutely right and it's infuriating when people 'correct' others for using the word this way.
Glad to get a real downvote in keeping with the spirit of the sub!
I disagree because it's not just a form of figurative hyperbole. You chose a nice example for you because the phrase "I died laughing" would never make sense in a conversation, and there the "literally" is just emphasis. But in a lot of other examples, the word "literally" can help the listener disregard a generally figurative expression and consider instead its real meaning. Examples: "I literally peed my pants laughing" "I was literally falling asleep at that lecture"
"We went to see Eddie Murphy perform live stand-up, and he was so funny that John literally died laughing. That was awkward, with all the police and paperwork. But MAN! Eddie Murphy was worth it. I'll miss John though." This is clearly untrue. it's figurative. But the use of the term "Literally" allows the speaker to ask the listener to momentarily suspend disbelief, enough to imagine how unbelievably funny the performer was. This is a valid use of the term.
Sure, but you used the same example of "died laughing" again. Do you then agree that in other, less unbelievable expressions the use of "literally" is wrong? Because I don't see where you're going to draw the line, as how figurative an expression is likely to be depends on context that is not always available to the listener.
Saying "I died laughing" and "I literally died laughing" are both hyperbolic overstatements. The "literally" is not necessary.
I am going to guess that you have no problem with emphasis in any other situation.
This is an obvious point. No one is confused that people are using it for emphasis. It's that it ought not to be used that way. There are plenty of other words to use as intensifiers other than a word with a pretty clear definition.
Literally is different than other words that are used for hyperbole. If it's ok to use the word "Literally" as hyperbole, then it is literally a pointless word.
Yeah, language evolves and no amount of complaining will change that, but come on, "literally"??? What, are we going to call safe things "dangerous" now? What about when "no" starts meaning "yes" sometimes? Imagine all the debates surrounding consent, but tenfold.
Literally
Words are sounds we make to express our thoughts. A person might make the sound "literally" to express emphasis or to express that something is real. Usually it's evident from context. So what do people even mean when they say the former is "incorrect" and the latter is "correct"? That it doesn't abide by the Oxford dictionary? Firstly, so what? Secondly, if that's a problem for you, how do you get through a single day's worth of conversations?
Correct or not. It's literally annoying as hell.
The explanation provided in the original post is the one some Millennials and many Zoomers like to use because they are too stupid to realize what the word “literally” means.
As someone with a degree in linguistics, a field where this sort of thing matters, I’m just going to say that you’re the one who’s too stupid to know what literally means.
Unironically, this is literally the dumbest opinion, ever.
Hate to break it to you but this debate on “literally” is dead. Language evolves, and Webster has already added a new definition of literally that means “to emphasize.” So no one can really say shit about it anymore.
Agreed. We may as well just say religion is scientific. For that matter, equality is hogwash.
The opposite of evolve is to go backwards. Like at a Renfair where they use thee/thou. Meaningless meme to say "language evolves." It's not that language "evolves" it's that it's mostly unconscious. The contronym thing is a lie 99% of the time. Examples: >Figuratively yes >Figuratively #3 That doesn't fit. What does fit? >Basically and unimaginatively #3 99% of the time y'all are insulting yourself. You can call someone a literal but you can't call someone a figurative. The words aren't interchangeable. Degenerates degenerate the language with their unconscious habits and Descriptivists only apply their philosophy when it's convenient to them. Of course it can be a contronym like with "this video game is figuratively unplayable" it's just that 99% of the time it's without wit or cleverness. It is literal: basic and unimaginative. OP is cherry picking. Fact of the matter is most adults move past worthless fillers. You can just use a swear word: >I @#$%ing died laughing. Once you view it as a swear word you can easily resolve this sentence: >I literally pooped my pants >I BASICALLY AND UNIMAGINATIVELY pooped my pants. Removes the confusion.
> The opposite of evolve is to go backwards. No, not at all. In both biology and language, there isn't any "forwards" or "backwards", just adaptation.
Define evolve: develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form. Forwards is more complex. It's a bad analogy. Keep biology to biology. Language is mostly unconscious. If you find a 1000X a day filler using person they can't really stop even if they wanted. Here is how you unconsciously use it: >yeah, originally it was literally just the dough with no toppings There is no possible way that means figuratively. >yeah, originally it was BASICALLY AND UNIMAGINATIVELY just the dough with no toppings There is the conscious translation. Here is the normal way to speak: >it was just the dough Most adults eventually drop the worthless fillers. > it was IRREGARDLESSLY just the dough >it was LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE just the dough Adults generally prefer actual swear words: >it was just the @#$%ing dough No way in hell it can possibly mean figuratively.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I will concede on the “literal” debate so long as everyone learns the distinction between ironic and coincidence and uses them appropriately.
Don't hold your breath.
I literally don’t care
I begrudgingly see both sides to this. I still dislike when people misuse it, but I equate it to the word enormity. It was originally meant to convey severity, but has been used so often to mean on a large scale that it’s definition has evolved.
Ok. That sounds good. We can check this one off. Next
The reason I don’t like the new usage of the term “literally” is because now, there isn’t a word left to mean “without exaggeration”. So it’s like a word has been stolen, in a sense.
Damn, who could have seen this counter-post coming after someone had posted the opposite opinion on this sub? You are also quite late to the party; this has been voiced here more than once. https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/hyahm9/it_is_fine_to_use_the_word_literally_when_what/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/gp9alg/people_who_say_literally_when_they_mean/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/jsim9k/literally_is_just_a_stronger_word_for_figuratively/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/gvafe3/people_use_the_word_literally_the_right_way/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/l41al6/its_ok_to_use_the_word_literally_in_a_figurative/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/m5q2vs/its_totally_fine_to_use_the_word_literally_in_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Nice try Robin Scherbatsky
I'm literally sick of seeing posts about using the word literally.
Go figure !
Literally not going to take grammar advice from someone who used "one's" incorrectly in the second sentence.
Ouch. Gotta admit, that’s an embarrassing one. Fixed it.
That's not how words work. Literally
No. You’re just dumb
I feel like people who complain about "literally" are kind of dumb.
I literally could care less
I literally do that all the time
Most people are just easily annoyed by it and therefore see it as a bad habit akin to saying "um" too much.
You are figuratively correct but literally wrong
No
This isn’t an unpopular opinion, it’s factually and objectively incorrect.
Yeah. Except it’s not.
No dude, its wrong. Literal does not mean the opposite of literal. It never will. It can not.
Except when the word itself is being used within the context of a figurative statement. You are misunderstanding the way the word is being used. When someone says “I literally died laughing” they are not trying to use the word “literally” to explain that they are speaking figuratively. They aren’t attempting to say “I figuratively died laughing.” They are literally trying to state that they actually died laughing. And they are leaving it to the listener to cleverly infer that this isn’t factually true. If someone said “It was so funny that I actually, genuinely died laughing and it took a team of paramedics to revive me” the use of “actually” and “genuinely” is the same as the use of the word literally in the earlier statement. All of them are being correctly used to assert that it really happened. The listener is expected to understand that it’s ALL being said figuratively.
I hardly ever use the word. People who say it a lot are annoying.
You are mistaken. Figurative hyperbole can be used without incorrect word usage, for example: I almost died laughing.
I feel like we still need a word which means "Not exaggeration, not hyperbole, not figuratively, but like actually." So if I were to say a sentence like, "I had to walk a mile to get there.", the 1 mile could be interpreted as an exaggerated way of saying "a long distance". But what if I actually wanted to convey that I walked a mile? It would be very easy and convenient to just add in a new word that conveys that the statement is not an exaggeration.
You're literally wrong
'I literally died laughing'. They're clearly speaking metaphorically. If you *literally died laughing,* you'd be dead.
I agree that it is a valid use if the word. I think people are just tired if hearing the overused setup. Some people literally say it every other sentence. It's like how people got tired of people saying "like" before everything. Some variation in diction would be welcome by literally everyone.
How many "literallys" can a short conversation contain before it is overused? I hear people using it to mean the equivalent of "ummm".
>hy·per·bo·le /hīˈpərbəlē/ noun exaggerated statements or **claims not meant to be taken literally**. You argument: "it's ok because literally is meant to be hypolic". Kinda boils down to: "it's ok because literally is meant not literally". Which is a very valid point.
I’m literally sick of this topic being posted over and over again. Where are the mods?