Hacker News Reader

Comment by JMTQp8lwXL | Hacker News Reader

In informal usage, "literally" is used to provide emphasis. Literally, in this context, doesn't mean literally true. It's a figure of speech.

Example: You might've heard a phrase like "I was literally blown away by the response I got" (probably from a vlogger). Nobody in English would say, "I was figuratively blown away by the response I got", because it's obvious the person is speaking figuratively.

Here, literally is meant to emphasize just how effective AWS is acting analogously to the Treasury's money printing presses.

View on HN

I understand that English is defined by those who speak it, not by committee, and that the colloquial use of the word "literally" as an intensifier is widespread. I still think the word "literally" is worth fighting for. It would be a pity to turn a word with such precise, significant, and unique meaning into yet another mediocre intensifier, of which we have dozens. In doing so, we would not merely add a definition, we would destroy the old one.

So, I'm with GP: the word "literally" doesn't fit the context and ought to be replaced.

"Literally" has been used in the contemporary colloquial sense since at least 1769[0].

[0]: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061 definition 1c

Then it has been worth fighting for since at least 1769.

I think the battle has long been lost

This.

I'm all for treating language as the living thing it is. However, "literally" is a very useful word and there's noting else quite like it.

If "literally" can mean both literally and the exact opposite of literally, it becomes devoid of meaning.

When there's a word with 2 meanings that are almost opposites of each other, that's confusing. I think it's good to avoid using words in confusing ways like that.

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc?t=163

Add this to the list of quirks of the English language.

And especially that world. “Literally” has also meant “figuratively” for over 150 years [https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...]

I used to argue the other way too, then one day on a whim I looked it up. I was surprised.

I love Weird Al; but there's rarely confusion with the word "literally", else it would have fallen out of usage long ago.

When someone says "it's literally a printing press" about something that is obviously not a printing press, you know that they are using literally as it has been used for hundreds of years[0]: for strong emphasis.

[0]: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109061 definition 1c.

English is full of words and phrases that mean something different from their literal meaning. Another classic example is "I could care less."

Steven Pinker wrote about this in detail in The Language Instinct.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/i-could-care-less...

When someone says "I literally could care less", everyone listening knows what they mean. There is no confusion and no need to worry about whether they are literally correct.

This is just part of the fun and wonder of the English language.

The literal definition works fine.

Consider the related “it’s possible for me to care less” suggesting a preference exists, but it’s negligible. That’s generally how people mean “I could care less”. Which oddly enough means the literal difference between “I (could/couldn’t) care less.” is practically meaningless.

I'm not sure if you intentionally chose a phrase that's usually mistakenly used to also mean the opposite - and then add literally to it.

When I hear someone say "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less" then I tend to understand that they value their words, language, and meaning less than I do mine. They're unintentionally signaling to me that what they're saying isn't necessarily what they mean, and so I factor that into my understanding of, belief in, and reliance upon, whatever they may say.

I am glad that you value words, language, and meaning. So do I.

But people who say "I could care less" are usually not mistaken. They know full well what they mean, and that the phrase seems to say the opposite of its literal meaning.

It's a great example of irony and sarcasm, both of which have a rich history in English, and probably in most languages.

Pinker has a fine discussion of the phrase in the book I mentioned. I can't do it justice here, but consider how the phrase is spoken. I will use italics to indicate emphasis:

I could care less.

Try saying that out loud a few times with emphasis on the italicized words. You may start to hear the ironic and sarcastic intent.

English would be a much poorer language if we could only use words and phrases in their most literal meaning.

Also consider the context. "I could care less" is used in casual speech, where it's perfectly OK to play with the language and have fun with it.

That is quite different from, say, a manual on how to operate a piece of machinery, or any other kind of technical documentation. There of course you want to be as clear, explicit, and unambiguous as possible.

But I wouldn't judge someone's ability to write a clear technical manual based on their enjoyment of irony in more casual speech or writing.

The average person I know who says "I could care less" would also say "For all intensive purposes".

They know what they mean, but they're not expressing some deep irony or sarcasm. They're just parroting back something they've heard someone else say-- incorrectly.

For all intensive purposes, it is best to use powerful tools and know how to use them. For less intensive purposes, you may get by with a Swiss Army knife.

But yeah, sometimes we just make a mistake.

Haven't we all uttered a malapropism at one time or another?

I love watching a flamingo dance!

I would not view someone's usage of colloquial usage of words/phrases (who's true meaning is widespread, even if the phrase is literally incorrect) as some deep statement on their personal views of words and language.

Most people don't think about linguistics regularly. Their ignorance on a topic doesn't mean they would or would not be passionate about it, had they known more.

This is literally the dumbest thing to do with a word. I mean literally, not literally.

In informal usage, "literally" is used to mean it's literal opposite "figuratively". Which I find literally demonstrative of human nature.

"Informal" tends to mean "wrong", "bastardised", or "misappropriated". So I think we're all actually on the same page.

What place does informal usage have in our speech, if only to be immediately corrected when it is used? When a commenter said, "No, you meant X", that statement in itself is wrong because the other poster intentionally used the colloquial definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com