Mike Reiss

[PatsWickedPissah]

I must be on the wrong part of Twitter as I don't recall seeing that word

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Don’t start...it’s horrible

if you go on twitter, 50% of all posts contain the word “Literally”. I don’t understand why so many on twitter use the word. It’s not a popular word

Could be alliteration with the word 'litter', as in 'littering the web'; 'littering your mind'

More fun examples:

"A good cook could cook as much cookies as a good cook who could cook cookies."

"I saw a saw that could out saw any other saw I ever saw."


Say either of these ten times fast, and you probably still will not be able to see who wins Sunday night because the Pats' and Texans' uniforms are virtually identical.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Perhaps “they” mean to use the word “liberally?” I mean it’s pretty much a laissez-faire attitude. In fact, dictionary.com translates the origin of laissez-faire: “French, literally ‘allow to do.’ Hilarious.

OK I forgot what we were talking about.

Oh yeah! Mike, right.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I nearly cut him off in traffic, a few years ago. Took me a moment to recognize him.

"Yeah, I remember that. You need to set the edge faster next time."

 

[Hyped]

While we are at it...

I normally visit ESPNBoston.com/patriots via a link....

And for the last 3 weeks the article at the top has been, "Tom Brady praises exceptional Hamilton ahead of sixth title"....WTF?

 

[Deus Irae]

I challenge you to go on twitter and see for yourself

You’ll see “you LITERALLY just made my point” over and over again. Maybe most don’t notice it, but it bugs the crap out of me.

I challenge you to go back and re-read your post and my response

You'll see that "WTF" refers to your claim that half the posts on twitter are using the word "literally", while you were also claiming that it's not a popular word.















Literally.

 

[LJRomanoff]

While we are at it...

I normally visit ESPNBoston.com/patriots via a link....

And for the last 3 weeks the article at the top has been, "Tom Brady praises exceptional Hamilton ahead of sixth title"....WTF?

Six titles is pretty impressive. Not sure why you have such a big issue with it.

 

[Tony2046]

Could be alliteration with the word 'litter', as in 'littering the web'; 'littering your mind'

More fun examples:

"A good cook could cook as much cookies as a good cook who could cook cookies."

"I saw a saw that could out saw any other saw I ever saw."


Say either of these ten times fast, and you probably still will not be able to see who wins Sunday night because the Pats' and Texans' uniforms are virtually identical.

I have a friend named Lee. He always litters. I call him Litter-Lee.

 

[Oswlek]

It's used figuratively, but the fact that you can use the word "literally" figuratively bothers people for some reason

The fact that "figurative" and "literal" are diametric opposites might be the reason.

How many other examples of these types of contradictory terms being interchangeable are there? Slang terms like "bad" or "nasty" are close, bit not quite there because they are specific compliments and not diametric opposites. They're also used intentionally, whereas literally-as-figurative seems to be borne out of obliviousness.

So, yes, this particular word being used figuratively is ridiculous, and justifiably irksome.

 

[primetime]

The fact that "figurative" and "literal" are diametric opposites might be the reason.

How many other examples of these types of contradictory terms being interchangeable are there? Slang terms like "bad" or "nasty" are close, bit not quite there because they are specific compliments and not diametric opposites. They're also used intentionally, whereas literally-as-figurative seems to be borne out of obliviousness.

So, yes, this particular word being used figuratively is ridiculous, and justifiably irksome.

So literally is the only word that can't be used figuratively?

 

[Oswlek]

So literally is the only word that can't be used figuratively?

It's not a good idea to speak figuratively while using a word that means you aren't speaking figuratively.

Here's my question for you, what exactly are you being figurative about? It's not like "literal" is an adjective that is stretched to hyperbole to make a colorful point, or a verb that helps personify something. Nor is it sarcasm or wit in using a word out of place.

So what is figurative rather than simple error?

 

[Hyped]

Six titles is pretty impressive. Not sure why you have such a big issue with it.

LOL, it's annoying to have scroll down past that story every time I go to ESPNBoston.com/patriots....

I seem to remember during Deflategate, Reiss took to his personal blog to say that he "had no control over what ESPN put on that page" when Mort's B.S. info was all over the news...

 

[primetime]

It's not a good idea to speak figuratively while using a word that means you aren't speaking figuratively.

Here's my question for you, what exactly are you being figurative about? It's not like "literal" is an adjective that is stretched to hyperbole to make a colorful point, or a verb that helps personify something. Nor is it sarcasm or wit in using a word out of place.

So what is figurative rather than simple error?

Figurative language just means use of words or phrases that depart from conventional meaning to convey something more complicated. Despite the elementary school laundry list of types of figurative language, there's no strict definition of how figurative language has to be structured or operate in order to work. (Indeed, such a requirement would be contra the whole point of figurative language.)

The word "literally" in a figurative sense usually heightens whatever it modifies - in an ironic way, to some degree. Given that a lot of people use it, one imagines it has linguistic value.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Figurative language just means use of words or phrases that depart from conventional meaning to convey something more complicated. Despite the elementary school laundry list of types of figurative language, there's no strict definition of how figurative language has to be structured or operate in order to work. (Indeed, such a requirement would be contra the whole point of figurative language.)

The word "literally" in a figurative sense usually heightens whatever it modifies - in an ironic way, to some degree. Given that a lot of people use it, one imagines it has linguistic value.

Not sure if I believe all this. How many degrees do you have? Have you ever published in a top ten literary journal as rated by the New Yorker?

 

[primetime]

Not sure if I believe all this. How many degrees do you have? Have you ever published in a top ten literary journal as rated by the New Yorker?

I met Joyce Carol Oates once, handed her my short story, and - this is totally true - she personally told me, "Did you fart or was that someone else?"

 

[TB_Helmet]

I met Joyce Carol Oates once, handed her my short story, and - this is totally true - she personally told me, "Did you fart or was that someone else?"

Now that’s a story worth bragging about!

 

[Clonamery]

I met Joyce Carol Oates once, handed her my short story, and - this is totally true - she personally told me, "Did you fart or was that someone else?"

She’s been known to recognize genius immediately.

 

[Oswlek]

there's no strict definition of how figurative language has to be structured or operate in order to work.

I never said there was, just that this particular use of the word is pretty stupid, given that it unintentionally employs the exact opposite definition. You also give people too much credit in assuming ironic usage.

As an example, when someone uses "nasty/filthy" as a compliment, they do so knowing full well that the word is usually less positive. I challenge you to find a single example of someone knowingly using "literal" as "figurative" who wasn't specifically referencing the backwards usage.

There isn't any figurative intent here; it's a grammatical error and nothing more.

Given that a lot of people use it, one imagines it has linguistic value.

Sure, it adds emphasis. It does so erroneously, but that's the reason behind the usage.

I fully understand that language is fluid and usages lead definitions as much as the reverse. At the same time, there is such a thing as a pervasive error. Are you fine with changing the definition of "of" to accommodate a "could of (have)" usage, for example?

 

[primetime]

Literally not a grammatical error.

 

[Oswlek]

Literally not a grammatical error.

Fwiw, I cleaned up the language above.

Is this supposed to be a response to my challenge? If so, you aren't rebutting my point, you are making it.