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.
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.
For real
Exactly
Illiteratly
deleted by creator
In German we have multiple different words that mean “literally”, not all of which can be used for emphasis. There are the phrases “im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes” (“in the truest sense of the word”) as well as “etwas wörtlich nehmen” (“to take something literally”), both of which are usually not used for emphasis, presumably also because they don’t nearly fit into the grammatical construction of a sentence in a way that would produce emphasis. Then there is “buchstäblich” (roughly “letterish”), which means the same thing as literally and can be used in both ways, as it’s an adverb. But then there is “wortwörtlich” (roughly “word-wordly”), which is also an adverb and grammatically fits into the same position, but I’ve never heard it being used for emphasis.
Language is weird.
Actually…. Oh wait that one is almost on the list too by now.
Nope.
“No cap fr fr”
Or just improve your vocabulary.
You know of a word that satisfies OP’s criteria and you’re not going to share it?
deleted by creator
It’s not just one word. You use the appropriate adjective for the sentence. It’s many words.
Or just leave out words like literally as they do
literallyabsolutely nothing.Obviously, you use the word that expresses what you intend to express. The question is what that word would be when you want to express “literally” in the strict dictionary definition sense without ambiguity.
Give me an example where using the word literally makes the sentence clearer. For the most part using the word literally is entirely unnecessary, and provides no value.
I don’t understand where this question is coming from. The premise of this question is that “literally” is ambiguous. That its meaning is unclear. How does an ambiguous word add clarity to a sentence?
Well, since it took the place of actually, why not use it?
Then that word will just get used sarcastically.
No cap fr fr
Isn’t that just figuratively?
Archer made it acceptable to say too so you dont just sound like a grammar nerd
Had to scroll down 40 posts before this appeared.
It is
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.
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.
Linguistic drift happens over generations, this is just illiteracy
So you mean, if this use of ‘literally’ had been around for, say, several centuries, you’d consider it acceptable?
Lol still no, the article you linked makes it clear that in all that time the situation hasn’t changed at all, the primary definition is the same and the secondary usage is the same and the criticism is the same
Your comment was purely about these changes taking generations to happen, this is something that has been in the work since the 18th century. It’s a perfectly typical change, not a sudden one based in illiteracy.
No, this is something that has not changed at all since the 18th century, learn to read
You are so confidently incorrect and unable to recognize your error. I invite you to re-read the whole article. This is a use that first surfaced in the 18th century and has slowly become more common, with an adoption peak recently. That’s how languages evolve.
In any case, definitely not about illiteracy, which, once again, is your original claim.
Gain some maturity.
The primary definition is unchanged for several centuries, the secondary definition has always been secondary and is more controversial than ever, if anything it seems pretty obvious that any linguistic drift occurring is in the opposite direction of your preference. I’m right and I’m winning, cope.
The correct answer is to make incorrect usage of the word “literally” socially unacceptable. Be fucking mean about it.
