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.
Actually, though.
I agree, the bastardization of Literally is one of my vocabulary pet peeves, along with Crescendo.
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
Literally, same
Once I found out that that the definition of literally has literally been changed to “literally, but sometimes figuratively”, I’ve switched to objectively and subjectively when describing things, which aren’t quite the same but I literally don’t have a word anymore that means literally.
So instead of literally you could use objectively. I like that no one is going to use objectively as slang because it’s kind of a clunky, obtuse word that doesn’t literally roll off the tongue.
People already are using objectively the same way as literally.
For real
Exactly
Illiteratly
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.
deleted by creator
“No cap fr fr”
Actually…. Oh wait that one is almost on the list too by now.
Nope.
Isn’t that just figuratively?
Archer made it acceptable to say too so you dont just sound like a grammar nerd
Had to scroll down 40 posts before this appeared.
Literally?
No, actually 32.
It is
Or just improve your vocabulary.
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?
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.
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.
You know of a word that satisfies OP’s criteria and you’re not going to share it?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
“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.
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?
Well, since it took the place of actually, why not use it?
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.
