I understand that, but we already have a word for that -- figuratively.

I'm a long-term fan of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (and accept that it's not without dispute).

It doesn't mean the same thing as "figuratively". "I figuratively died laughing" doesn't mean anything to most people; most English-speakers won't understand what you mean by it. I mean, that usage of "figuratively" was invented purely as a reaction to non-literal "literally" so only people who have heard of this usage debate will understand what you're doing.

"I literally died laughing" doesn't mean the same thing as "I died laughing", either. "Literally" functions as an intensifier here, and therefore the former sentence is stronger.

Yeah, okay, I shouldn't have suggested the use of the word 'figuratively' as a surrogate for some emphatic adjective.

Would you be happy with 'I died laughing ...' when people describe something especially funny? (I would, for the record.)

And/or do you think 'I literally died laughing ...' (when people didn't actually die from laughing) to be more emphatic / compelling a commendation?

If someone said 'I literally died twice from laughter ...' would that be doublepluscompelling?

>Would you be happy with 'I died laughing ...' when people describe something especially funny? (I would, for the record.)

Then you would already be OK with something analogous to using "literally" as an intensifier.

Since, of course, "died" also means something specific that's unrelated to laughing, and the person uttering the phrase doesn't imply that they actually died.

>If someone said 'I literally died twice from laughter ...' would that be doublepluscompelling?

No, that's why people don't say it. It's the historical evolution of language that dictates what's "doublepluscompelling" or not, not some a priori rules.

"He literally glowed; without a word or a gesture of exultation a new well-being radiated from him and filled the little room." - F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

like

Now you're just coming off as mad at intensifiers in general. Sure, you can write without them. Doesn't stop them from being useful.

None of this is important.

>I understand that, but we already have a word for that -- figuratively.

In Vulcan it's usually frowned upon, but human languages often use nuance, play, context, and (gasp) more than one word for the same notion.

Moreover, the value of a word is not in its definition, but in its use. Even if "literally" (in this usage scenario) means the same as "figuratively" they both have very different connotations and impact on the listener.