Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004

Didn't someone write a defense for using "literally" non-literally?  I
think it hinged on the idea that other words are used metaphoricallly, so
why should we complain if "literally" is used to mean something other than
"literally"?  

I can't seem to find it.  I get this vague feeling of wrongness because
it's self-referential -- what if we defined "false" to mean "true" because,
after all, "false" indicates falseness, so its meaning must be the opposite
of what it is defined to be.  I know that's not quite it, dammit.  Can't
seem to get my mind around the concept I want to explain.

Anyway.  I don't think the metaphorical use will completely swamp the
original meaning.  Of course, usage eventually trumps any rules we might
make, and there's no dearth of usage of the metaphorical sense.  But the
word's origin is too obvious, and "literal" is too widespread a word, for
me to think the "literal" meaning is going away soon.

I did see an encouraging "correct" use of it in an article from the New
York Times (thank you gray lady):

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?tntget=2003/12/30/science/30PROF.html&tntemail1

December 30, 2003
SCIENTISTS AT WORK
From Old Cars to Cartilage
By JUDY FOREMAN

"As a 3-year-old, Jay literally devoured the Merck manual, a medical
bible, ripping out the pages and chewing them."

-JoAnne