Dave Chappelle's Netflix show

[Lexicus]

Again, misuse of the word literally.

Full Definition of literally


1: in a literal sense or manner: such as
a: in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expressionHe took the remark literally.a word that can be used both literally and figuratively
b—used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or descriptionThe party was attended by literally hundreds of people.
c: with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactlyThe term "Mardi Gras" literally means "Fat Tuesday" in French.
d: in a completely accurate waya story that is basically true even if not literally true
2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possiblewill literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice

 

[NovaKart]

Full Definition of literally


1: in a literal sense or manner: such as
a: in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expressionHe took the remark literally.a word that can be used both literally and figuratively
b—used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or descriptionThe party was attended by literally hundreds of people.
c: with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactlyThe term "Mardi Gras" literally means "Fat Tuesday" in French.
d: in a completely accurate waya story that is basically true even if not literally true
2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possiblewill literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice

Your own link says it’s not the meaning of the word.

 

[Lexicus]

Your own link says it’s not the meaning of the word.

there is a dictionary definition right there which is the sense in which I was using the word so btfo

 

[NovaKart]

A dictionary documents how a word is sometimes used, it doesn’t mean that word is used correctly and the site you linked to says that and brings up the issue with literally because a lot of people misuse it.

But sure, keep fighting the good fight on the misuse of a word.

 

[Samson]

A dictionary documents how a word is sometimes used, it doesn’t mean that word is used correctly and the site you linked to says that and brings up the issue with literally because a lot of people misuse it.

But sure, keep fighting the good fight on the misuse of a word.

In English use defines meaning. If a word is used and understood to mean something, then is means that.

 

[amadeus]

I wasn't paying attention and then this thread figuratively blew up while I was at work.

 

[NovaKart]

The use is in debate here and that’s noted by this dictionary.

 

[Samson]

The dictionary notes that there are different and even contradictory meanings, but that is not the same as it use being in debate. It just means that the word means one thing sometimes and something else other times. That is something that happens in English, there is no debate about that.

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't the false use of "literally" mostly featured ironically nowadays?
The petty fights in this forum literally killed CFC. Cfc is still around, and isn't a living organism, so the irony is doubled.

 

[amadeus]

If you're confused by what critical race theory could possibly mean, it means nothing but a boogieman word. It was an obscure and complex niche academic law school terminology, that now means, whatever a snowflake Republican doesn't like.

I'm thinking it's something of a two-way street because there are uninformed people out there who will think "critical race theory" = "we should tell people racism is bad," so you end up with supporters and detractors alike fighting over a thing that doesn't exist in the sense that you or I would think it to exist.

 

[NovaKart]

The dictionary notes that there are different and even contradictory meanings, but that is not the same as it use being in debate. It just means that the word means one thing sometimes and something else other times. That is something that happens in English, there is no debate about that.

It doesn’t only note that, it brings up the fact that this is often found objectionable.

 

[Samson]

It doesn’t only note that, it brings up the fact that this is often found objectionable.

In full:

Can literally mean figuratively?
One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal").
Is the extended use of literally new?
The "in effect; virtually" meaning of literally is not a new sense. It has been in regular use since the 18th century and may be found in the writings of Mark Twain, Charlotte Brontë, James Joyce, and many others.
Is the extended use of literally slang?
Among the meanings of literally is one which many people find problematic: "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Neither this nor any of the other meanings of literally is what we would consider slang. This sense has been in standard use by many esteemed writers since the 18th century
​

I do not read this as the use is in debate.

 

[NovaKart]

This provides more info:

All of the dictionaries listed above also provide usage notes with the definition of literally, indicating that this sense is widely frowned upon.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally

 

[Kyriakos]

In full:

Can literally mean figuratively?
One of the definitions of literally that we provide is "in effect, virtually—used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible." Some find this objectionable on the grounds that it is not the primary meaning of the word, "with the meaning of each individual word given exactly." However, this extended definition of literally is commonly used and is not quite the same meaning as figuratively ("with a meaning that is metaphorical rather than literal").​

Is it needed to turn 'literally' into a Goedel sentence?

Reminds me of how "monosyllabic" isn't monosyllabic. If "literally" isn't tied to what it defines, then it can be non-literally, which in your sentence (in red) supposedly differs from metaphorically or figuratively, but I only pick up a difference if it's strictly artificial (as in "when the term is used this way, it doesn't mean what it means at other times, nor what is meant when the term for non-literal is used). What use does this kind of metastructure have, other than to (bizarrely) lend some validity to what seems to be simply an erroneous use?
In other words, what is the new category (other than the over-category of ironical posting; a category not tied to "literally" itself) created by the use of "literally" when you mean something that is not literal?

 

[Samson]

This provides more info:



https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally

Quote wars (from same page):

Literally every modern dictionary includes a definition for the metaphoric or intensifying sense of the word literally. Why do we hate the English language so?
We don’t.
There is no plot by dictionary-makers to destroy our language. There is not even a plot to loosen our language's morals and corrupt it a bit. There is, however, a strong impulse among lexicographers to catalog the language as it is used, and there is a considerable body of evidence indicating that literally has been used in this fashion for a very long time. All of the dictionaries listed above also provide usage notes with the definition of literally, indicating that this sense is widely frowned upon.

If this sense of literally is bothersome, you needn’t use it. If you dislike hearing other people use it, you may continue to be upset. If you would like to broaden your complaint slightly, and insist that the original meaning of literal is the only proper one, go right ahead (although, before committing to this, you should be aware that this will restrict you to using literal when you mean “of, relating to, or expressed in letters”).

We understand that many have chosen this particular issue as the one about which they choose to draw a line in the sand, on the grounds that a word should not mean one thing and its opposite (a fairly common thing in English). But a living language is a language that is always changing; this change may be lovely, and it may be ugly. As lexicographers we are in the business of defining language, rather than judging it.​

 

[NovaKart]

Okay … that doesn’t contradict anything I posted.

 

[NovaKart]

Is it needed to turn 'literally' into a Goedel sentence?

Reminds me of how "monosyllabic" isn't monosyllabic. If "literally" isn't tied to what it defines, then it can be non-literally, which in your sentence (in red) supposedly differs from metaphorically or figuratively, but I only pick up a difference if it's strictly artificial (as in "when the term is used this way, it doesn't mean what it means at other times, nor what is meant when the term for non-literal is used). What use does this kind of metastructure have, other than to (bizarrely) lend some validity to what seems to be simply an erroneous use?
In other words, what is the new category (other than the over-category of ironical posting; a category not tied to "literally" itself) created by the use of "literally" when you mean something that is not literal?

How could you describe something as monosyllabic using just one syllable?

 

[Kyriakos]

How could you describe something as monosyllabic using just one syllable?

There isn't a term for that, only the polysyllabic "monosyllabic". But the term isn't there to define itself as a term; just terms in general. Unlike with "literally", which can apply to it's own use due to requiring context and not just one object.

 

[amadeus]

How could you describe something as monosyllabic using just one syllable?

Well

 

[Samson]

Okay … that doesn’t contradict anything I posted.

As I understand it these facts are not in debate:

• English is a living language and the meaning of words is defined by use
• Many people over many years have used literally to mean in effect
• Therefore literally can mean in effect
• Some people think it SHOULD not mean this, as it makes english harder to understand or more ugly or something

You said:

The use is in debate here and that’s noted by this dictionary.

You see the contradiction? It is like the difference in saying "People in the US SHOULD not have the right to bear arms" and "People in the US DO not have the right to bear arms".