Skip to main content

definition of literal, figurative: People are "literally" insane. What about sutta translators?



"My brain literally exploded."
"My mind was literally blown."

I was taught these two definitions for "literal" and "figurative" in grade school,

explained nicely here by Miles N. Fowler,
Copy editor, coll. newspaper, Pi Delta Epsilon (Journalism)

People will get a word into their heads and use it more than they should, 
to the point where they are misusing it.

I don’t know why, but why have so many people, for so long, 
used the word “literally” incorrectly?

“A wasp came flying at me, and it was literally as big as a house!”

No, it was literally closer to one inch long, 
but it might have seemed much bigger at close range.
 (Fear causes the mind to exaggerate.)

The word “literally” should only be used to describe reality.
 It does not mean that something is only found in poetry (literature).

It is never “literally raining cats and dogs.”
 That would mean that furry creatures were actually falling from the sky.
 The correct way of saying that would be, 
 “It is figuratively raining cats and dogs,” 
 as in, a “figure” of speech.
People do not overuse the word “figurative.”
Go figure.

Recently, I've heard several younger people using the word "literally" incorrectly

I thought, is the younger generation completely uneducated?
It only takes two seconds with phones and personal computers to look up a correct meaning of a word.
Why are their friends and social media followers not being a good friend and correcting them,
letting them know they look uneducated and foolish?
Just as people let their friends know if there's a piece of food stuck in their teeth and they look goofy?




Then I thought, maybe I'm "literally" the "insane" one

One of the things I've learned in life is never underestimate the stupidity of people.
So I took 2 seconds to do a quick internet search to see if the dictionary meaning for "literal" had changed. 

Indeed it did!
summarized nicely in this excerpt from:

https://theweek.com/articles/466957/how-wrong-definition-literally-sneaked-into-dictionary

Much to the chagrin of grammar-lovers everywhere, 
it turns out that this informal (and completely incorrect) use of "literally" 
has actually been added to three established dictionaries, 
as Reddit user andtheniansaid pointed out.
 
Here's what each dictionary said:

Merriam-Webster added a second usage of the word to mean "virtually," 
but added the disclaimer that 
"Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, 
it has been frequently criticized as a misuse.
Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, 
but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary."

Cambridge Dictionaries Online added that the informal usage of the word is 
"used to emphasize what you are saying," 
while Oxford Dictionaries also added a similar informal usage, 
which is "used for emphasis while not being literally true."
 
Oxford, however, also noted that 
"in recent years an extended use of literally has become very common, 
where literally is used deliberately in non-literal contexts, 
for added effect, 
as in they bought the car and literally ran it into the ground.
 
This use can lead to unintentional humorous effects 
and is not acceptable in formal contexts, although it is widespread."

So there you have it:
 The dictionaries have begrudgingly bowed to the will of the grammar-averse public.





What's the proper Buddhist attitude to words changing in meaning?

Everything is impermanent, 
language is constantly changing whether you like it or not.
So getting upset or angry about change is counterproductive, and bad for your health.

But from a purely pragamatic and common sense point of view,
not being pedantic or snobby intellectual elitist, 
some important terms you don't want to mess with because it's dangerous.
They can literally cause great harm or at the very least 
financial repercussions, waste of time, energy and resources
if people misunderstand your use of  term "literally" to be literal  (instead of the opposite meaning, "figurative").

For example, in this 8 second political advertisement,


If we take them literally, truthfully, at their word, that they were "literally shocked",
someone would call 911 and send an ambulance.
Do you literally know how expensive that is in time, money, resources?
Is that a politician you would elect?
(Don't answer that question, I don't want to know. If 71 million people elected a convicted felon as US President who's a known rapist, racist, misogynist lying liar only looking out for himself, not the good of the country, they're literally capable of electing anyone for any office)

You can literally use the word "literally" with the opposite meaning...


And the 3 major dictionaries have caved in to popular misuse and accept this opposite meaning.
But intelligent, sensible, pragmatic people 
are still going to think you're literally an idiot if you do,
whether the context is formal or not.





Brain teaser

Are these uses of "literally" correct?

1) Intelligent people will think you're literally an idiot if you use the word "literal" to mean "figurative".
2) Intelligent people will literally think you're an idiot if you use the word "literal" to mean "figurative".

I use the definition for "idiot"  in the general sense of  "person of low intelligence" here,
not a clinical diagnosis for some medical condition.

3) people who say "literal" when they actually mean the opposite "figurative" are literally insane.
using this definition of "insane": extreme foolishness or irrationality.

What about changing meaning of important words in sutta translation?

Buddhists accept change with equanimity, 
even if it's wrong or stupid,
but when it comes to important words in the suttas,
you have a draw a line.

All uses of "literally" there are correct. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha...

Lucid24.org: What's new?

Link to lucid24.org home page :    4👑☸   Remember, you may have to click the refresh button on your web browser navigation bar at to get updated website. 2024 9-17 Lots of new stuff in the last 2 and a half years.  Too many to list. Main one justifying new blog entry, is redesign of home page. Before, it was designed to please me, super dense with everything in one master control panel. I've redesigned it to be friendly to newbies and everyone really. Clear structure, more use of space.  At someone's request, I added a lucid24.org google site search at top of home page. 2022 4-14 Major update to lucid24.org, easy navigation of suttas, quicklink: the ramifications 4-2 new feature lucid24.org sutta quick link 3-28 A new translation of SN 38.16, and first jhāna is a lot easier than you think 🔗📝notes related to Jhāna force and J.A.S.I. effect AN 9.36, MN 64, MN 111: How does Ajahn Brahm and Sujato's "Jhāna" work here? 3-13 Added to EBPedia J.A.S.I. ('Jazzy...

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a...