The word you're looking for is "literally."
post
It would be subject to the same fate.
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.
rational used to just mean "possible to express as a ratio before it got co-opted by the academic-industrial complex- "
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".
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
Best that I can do is, "non-figuratively." As in, "The power of the hurricane winds non-figuratively blew me away."
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.
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"
Those words are "frfr ong"
Had to scroll down 40 posts before this appeared.
I guess OP is asking the opposite question. Renaming original literally with a new word instead of replacing current slang word literally

Archer made it acceptable to say too so you dont just sound like a grammar nerd
I've been using "genuinely" more and more in place of "literally" when I want to be, well, literal.
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.
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
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:
Psychologists discovered that, since 2005, the average person has spoken less each year than the year before, by approximately 338 fewer words per day.
Then they'll just make THAT one mean "not really literally", too.
-- Frost
"Unequivocally"
"without exaggeration"
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
“Seriously” THE WORD. It’s not hard. There isn’t a “need” so much as a discipline and normal fucking intelligence.
I Absolutely agree. It's Totally absurd, we Really need a new word.
I propose "dictionarily".
Configulatory
Then that word will just get used sarcastically.
"Exactly". "Truly". "Literally, in the traditional sense not the post modern sense where it means emphatically or figuratively"
We should stop using adverbs
Language evolves.
"Ignorants" is literally not a word
it's widely accepted that the word "literally" can be used to add emphasis
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.
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.
"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.
Language and meaning don't simply change in 10-20 years unless forced upon.
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


top 100 comments