Talk:literally

Virtually?
Is virtually really the best choice for definition 2? Yes, this use of literally is hyperbolic, but it's still being used as an intensifier. And virtually definitely isn't an intensifier. I suggest that better alternatives would be totally, completely, or really. AwesomenessJunkie (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment
The section entitled "usage" was rather bias, and only stressed one side of an argument, and provided very little support for the idea expressed other than the opinion of an Author of a book. It's examples were redundant, and only explained how it "should" be used based on a bias idea. The revised section addresses concerns of both sides, admits to the idea that words can become confusing when given multiple definitions, but also supports the other side of the argument with real life examples, for why use of the word literally as hyperbole can not be entirely discredited.

RFV
Rfv-sense. Without hyperbole or slang. What does this even mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get the intent of "slang", but "without exaggeration" is an Encarta definition. My preference, if you agree and no one objects before it is done, would be to split the sense and rfv both or just the "without slang" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't "without exaggeration" the same as the "downtoner" sense? Pingku 07:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had never before seen or heard the redlinked term downtoner, a state that I am sure I share with 99+% of normal potential users, who would not find the term in any OneLook reference either, nor find the works using it at a bookstore near them. Accordingly, it is difficult for me to know whether it is the same or not. I gather it is the semantic opposite of an intensifier, just: being another example. It is difficult to assess the quality of the definitions without citations or references.
 * As I review this term, it makes me wonder about the wisdom of relying on the context tag "literally" to reach native English speakers. DCDuring TALK 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I still don't know what it means. I've never heard of a modal adverb either, just a modal verb. Again, hard to find supporting quotes for something I don't understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Modal adverbs are apparently English's way of achieving the full range of modality that human discourse needs without using conjugation or auxiliary/modal verbs. I agree with you about the long-term viability of the adverb subtype context tags. They are as bad as the WT:ELE-licensed semantic L4/5 headers like "meronyms". Even in the interim, they should be blue linked to an entry in a glossary. They are useful now only to someone trying to define hard-to-define terms. At least, I find them helpful. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the most straightforward way of simplifying this entry is to simply acknowledge that the word is often used to mean its long-time (one-time?) antonym, figuratively:. I have added the sense, to which the Dyer quote provides support, end added the term to Category:Contranyms. Some of the other contortionistic definitions seem to try to capture transitional uses. DCDuring TALK 11:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sense 6 should be under sense 2 (replacing the poor example there), but I agree that the whole entry needs simplification.   D b f  i  r  s   09:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Struck. I removed the disputed sense; note also my other changes. — Beobach 00:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Holmes citation
Given Holmes' messy habits, couldn't the Conan Doyle citation be the traditional sense of "literally" rather than the proscribed one? Equinox ◑ 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatives to "you literally become the ball"?
I wonder if there's a more universal phrase illustrating a figurative usage than "you literally become the ball" in the Usage Notes section. I suppose it is a golf idiom? There must be something more recognizable to a broad audience as a figurative usage; I'm concerned that a reader unfamiliar with the phrase "become the ball" would be confused by this example. Tcraven (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Has anyone else heard something along the lines of  (three syllables) as a pronunciation of this word? Is it considered correct? TortoiseWrath (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reduction of the schwa, leaving /ˈlɪ.tɹə.li/, is common (compare the three-vs-four syllable pronunciations of "dictionary" and "Wiktionary" which cause so much dispute about this site's logo, lol). In turn, some accents/speakers render /tɹ/ as something like the [tʃɹ] you've heard. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"with known technology"...?

 * For example “you literally become the ball”, without any figurative sense, means actually transforming into a spherical object, which is clearly impossible with known technology.

lol
 * Yeah, that wording was a bit odd. I removed it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Emphasizer
From emphasizing non-metaphors literally has bit by bit passed to emphasizing metaphors and figures of speech. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)