Job Discussion Forums

Sashadroogie · Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:12 pm Post subject: Do we overuse 'literally'?

As in the Pet Peeves thread...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9704000/9704539.stm

Zero · Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 1402

"Misuse" of literally is a pet peeve of many. I think the criticism is overblown. People using it the "wrong" way know the real meaning. They are using hyperbole. We stretch and contort meanings all the time in what's called "figurative language." That's what "misuse" of literally is, nothing more. I bet we all use figures of speech 1,000 times a day!

Sashadroogie · Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:25 pm Post subject:

Yes, but isn't unfortunate that 'literally' is the opposite of 'figuratively'? Slang like 'wicked' or 'sick' may also mean the direct opposite of the intended meaning, but people are not using 'literally' in a slangy way... I think it is a significant difference.

johnslat · Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:28 pm Post subject:

Dear Sasha,

I agree - it literally KILLS me to hear/see people misuse that poor word.

Regards,
Dead John

Sashadroogie · Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject:

Dear Johnslat

Stop, stop! You're literally killing me here!

Regards

Sasha

LongShiKong · Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 1082 Location: China

It's interesting how many words change meanings and why. It's not surprising that the term 'literally' gets corrupted in what is clearly a post-literate world.

Given the declining importance of merit in a less male-dominated world, seems there's no bravery or other positive character traits associated with the word 'famous' anymore but its opposite implies there were at one time. On that note, I find it equally strange how the word 'coward' deriving from the notion of an animal with it's tail between it's legs is used to describe people who perform violent acts:

contented · Joined: 17 Oct 2011 Posts: 136 Location: اسطنبول

I always liked the word livid. It has the meaning of something being bluish from a bruise or strangulation. However, I know very few people who would use this word in that way. Many people use it to describe someone who is extremely angry.

johnslat · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:48 am Post subject:

Dear LongShiKong,

There's also "fond":

"mid-14c., originally "foolish, silly," from past tense of fonnen "to fool, be foolish," perhaps from M.E. fonne "fool" (early 14c.), of uncertain origin; or possibly related to fun. Meaning evolved by 1590 via "foolishly tender" to "having strong affections for." Another sense of fonne was "to lose savor," which may be the original meaning of the word (e.g. Wyclif: "Gif �e salt be fonnyd it is not wor�i," c.1380). Related: Fonder; fondest."

"When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait."

John Milton

Regards,
John

isabel · Joined: 07 Mar 2003 Posts: 510 Location: God's green earth

"Given the declining importance of merit in a less male-dominated world"

Really? I would think that it is the male "dominated" world that puts low value on merit- ignoring the merit of half of the population.

On the topic of "literally"- I admit it really bugs me to hear it misused. Rather like "I could care less". I suspect in most cases the person saying it does not really understand the meaning.

johnslat · Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:37 pm Post subject:

And how about this very common exchange?

A: Would you mind getting me some water?

B: Sure.

Aaarrrrrgggggghhhhhh. Twisted Evil

Regards,
John