0

Is there something wrong with that sentence? It feels... redundant? "Clunky", for want of a better word?

I want to say something along the lines of "I am at a loss for words, in every definition of the phrase", though perhaps in not as many words. Is that the correct use for "literally"?

Ben
  • 501
  • 1
    You know, English is not mathematics. It's not physics. Just because a sentence contains a bit of redundancy or superficial illogic does not make it invalid. Often redundancy is important, to emphasize what the speaker/writer want's emphasized. For the sentiment you suggest, "literally as a loss for words" is probably one of the better ways to phrase it. – Hot Licks Mar 10 '15 at 02:34
  • (And why did I put the apostrophe in "want's" like that??) – Hot Licks Mar 10 '15 at 03:11

1 Answers1

0

You are using the word "literally" correctly. The reason it sounds clunky is that lately people use "literally" as throwaway hyperbole. It's the same as with the word "hilarious": if everyone describes everything remotely humorous as "hilarious", it robs the original word of vigor.

Your choice then is to make a stylistic substitution. Would your sentence sound less clunky to you if you used a less specific word, like "completely" or "thoroughly"? Would it sound better to you if you dropped the adverb altogether and just left "at a loss for words" carry some subtler meaning? Would it sound better to you to change the whole sentence for something else, like "struck silent" or "left speechless"? It's ultimately a choice only you can make.

Uli Troyo
  • 101