Used as an intensive before a figurative expression.
this definition only applies to “literally”, not" literal" though
I think i remember some news about it being added to some small acclaim, but even leaving that aside, authors with a grasp of the language far better than you or me ever will have used ‘literally’ this way since before we were born. I think the earliest use was in the 18th century?
So now you know!
EDIT:
The use of literally in a fashion that is hyperbolic or metaphoric is not new—evidence of this use dates back to 1769. Its inclusion in a dictionary isn’t new either; the entry for literally in our 1909 unabridged dictionary states that the word is “often used hyperbolically; as, he literally flew.”
We (and all the other “craven dictionary editors”) have included this definition for a very simple reason: a lot of people use it this way, and our entries are based on evidence of use.
Furthermore, the fact that so many people are writing angry letters serves as a sort of secondhand evidence, as they would hardly be complaining about this usage if it had not become common.
An actual dictionary definition. Not the dictionary definition. And it’s because the dictionary is wrong in this one. Not factually incorrect, unfortunately; their goal here is to be objectively descriptivist, cataloguing use, and they are doing that. But this use is linguistically wrong on a fundamental level.
I’ve abandoned a great deal of the prescriptivist proclivities of my youth. I get it, language evolves. But I draw the line here. “Literally” means, specifically, in the literal sense. The whole point of the word is to make an explicit distinction from non-literal use. If you can use it to denote hyperbolic or figurative use, then the word literally loses all semantic purpose, it’s just a sound with no actual meaning. Sure, you can use words to mean their opposites sarcastically, but that requires an obvious tonal or contextual cues. The figurative use of “literally” is tonally the same as the literal use, all it does is add uncertainty.
It’s not even an effective intensifier, since that usage is less intense than the literal use. “I’m literally starving” is immediately less intense once it’s clear that it’s being used as an intensifier. It’s post-meaning gobbledygook.
It’s out of context. They have not understood where the word “literally” is being applied. Even if they did, the fourth definition they pulled does not apply. Which is a shame, considering all that effort.
My guess is because they’ve been feeling super-smart all these years laughing at people who use “literally” figuratively, and also i made no attempt to not sound like a prick.
But I don’t consider downvotes a bad thing here since they don’t hide the comment. I consider them engagement points.
I’m confident you don’t. :)
this definition only applies to “literally”, not" literal" though
I think i remember some news about it being added to some small acclaim, but even leaving that aside, authors with a grasp of the language far better than you or me ever will have used ‘literally’ this way since before we were born. I think the earliest use was in the 18th century?
So now you know!
EDIT:
From merriam-webster’s site
Give it a read, they’re more entertaining than i am
Why all the downvotes for the first to bring up the actual dictionary definition?
An actual dictionary definition. Not the dictionary definition. And it’s because the dictionary is wrong in this one. Not factually incorrect, unfortunately; their goal here is to be objectively descriptivist, cataloguing use, and they are doing that. But this use is linguistically wrong on a fundamental level.
I’ve abandoned a great deal of the prescriptivist proclivities of my youth. I get it, language evolves. But I draw the line here. “Literally” means, specifically, in the literal sense. The whole point of the word is to make an explicit distinction from non-literal use. If you can use it to denote hyperbolic or figurative use, then the word literally loses all semantic purpose, it’s just a sound with no actual meaning. Sure, you can use words to mean their opposites sarcastically, but that requires an obvious tonal or contextual cues. The figurative use of “literally” is tonally the same as the literal use, all it does is add uncertainty.
It’s not even an effective intensifier, since that usage is less intense than the literal use. “I’m literally starving” is immediately less intense once it’s clear that it’s being used as an intensifier. It’s post-meaning gobbledygook.
Because it is disingenuous.
It’s out of context. They have not understood where the word “literally” is being applied. Even if they did, the fourth definition they pulled does not apply. Which is a shame, considering all that effort.
My guess is because they’ve been feeling super-smart all these years laughing at people who use “literally” figuratively, and also i made no attempt to not sound like a prick.
But I don’t consider downvotes a bad thing here since they don’t hide the comment. I consider them engagement points.