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.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 106 points 6 months ago (14 children)

The word you're looking for is "literally."

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    Unfortunately Merriam-Webster disagrees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    It would be subject to the same fate.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I literally only use "literally" when I literally mean "literally".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago

    "Like actually literally, for realz"

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Best that I can do is, "non-figuratively." As in, "The power of the hurricane winds non-figuratively blew me away."

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago

    "No cap fr fr"

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    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"

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Those words are "frfr ong"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    The word is "acshully"

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    I've been using "genuinely" more and more in place of "literally" when I want to be, well, literal.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Then they'll just make THAT one mean "not really literally", too.

    -- Frost

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Literally literally

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago
    [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    "Verbatim" often works...

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I agree, the bastardization of Literally is one of my vocabulary pet peeves, along with Crescendo.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    “Seriously” THE WORD. It’s not hard. There isn’t a “need” so much as a discipline and normal fucking intelligence.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I Absolutely agree. It's Totally absurd, we Really need a new word.

    I propose "dictionarily".

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago
    [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Then that word will just get used sarcastically.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    "Actually" and "truly" and probably a few other synonyms already exist.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    "Exactly". "Truly". "Literally, in the traditional sense not the post modern sense where it means emphatically or figuratively"

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    We should stop using adverbs

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Illiteratly

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago
    [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    "widely accepted' by me and my douche teenage friends

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago
    [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    People just put extra emphasis or say literally literally

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago
    [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    "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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›