Google's Definition of 'Literally'
google.com
google.com
literally : used to describe something that actually happens or exists. A much misused adverb, often for emphasis. People often confuse this word with figuratively.
"I literally died of embarrassment."
"Really? How was reincarnation, you illiterate dipshit?"
>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.
..."completely incorrect"...!
What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite, and there is no way to tell from the context, eg:
"When the tiger went "Rawr! Rawrrr!", I literally fouled my breeches!"
Can't have a factual should. Shoulds are normative.
>What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite
Is the word really useless or indeed useful if no one can provide a 'real' example of actual ambiguity between the two meanings? Furthermore, it's not as if ambiguity between one meaning and an opposite meaning is the greatest ambiguity there is-- if anything, it makes it particularly obvious which meaning the speaker intends.
Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive. But even the descriptive type should provide information on how the word is used, eg: "sometimes incorrectly used to mean 'figuratively'".
Wait, think a minute. That description exactly corresponds with what I said. The "correct" usage of a word is precisely, exactly what the speaker thinks it means, at that moment in time.
If a dictionary listed a definition that was not in use by anyone, that would be different -- that would be incorrect.
> Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive.
Yes, and there are no prescriptive dictionaries, at least not in English. The French have one, created by the Académie française:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise
Apart from the French example, it seems telling people how to use words has fallen out of fashion, giving way to another example of evolution by natural selection.
So the person quoted doesn't actually know what a dictionary's purpose is. It seems there are still people who think a dictionary should prescribe, not describe.
This is by no means the only case where a word's meaning has changed over time, or even reversed its meaning. "Decimated", which now means destroyed or substantially destroyed depending on one's source, once meant reduced by a proportion of one tenth.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate
Notice the difference in the listings between Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com. It's an old tradition with Merriam-Webster (and its predecessor Webster's Dictionary) to list the oldest definitions first. It seems newer dictionaries have reversed this practice. Speaking of reversals. :)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly...
The definition of what is valid, legal would be simple: if 80% of English speaking population understands it, then it's legal. So typos and stuff like this would not be considered a mistake. THere fore the FolloWing wouldz bee valid alsoo.
But then I'd have to define what it means to speak English, which would require a lot of complex rules, etc. Then I thought it would be pointless, as it wouldn't matter if I wrote this down or not. People would still understand each other and go on about their lives.
"Cleave" means both split apart and stick together.
Edit: Maybe I should re-think my annoyance. Merriam Webster documents usage going back centuries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_VHZq_7eU
One possibility: dictionaries could report that a large fraction of English experts or teachers consider a particular usage incorrect. This would be a dispassionate reporting of people's behavior as well.
You may ask "How do you pick the experts?" Well, how did we pick the people whose diction the dictionary supposedly represents? :) We make do with approximations. I think that the OED could easily afford to sample 1000 English teachers ranging from professors to grade school, and ranging across many geographical regions and social strata. It would actually be fascinating data to see alongside a definition!
Edit: I had meant to add that the sampling for the words need not happen for every (word, expert) combination; giving each instructor 1000 words chosen uniformly from a pool of 10,000 words should get you reasonable coverage for almost all of those 10,000 words. So the costs of this sampling experiment on both OED and the expert volunteers would be quite low.
There are well-tested solutions. One is to have a language authority such as you suggest above, like the Académie française, which struggles against what it regards as erosions and distortions of proper French:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise
Another is simply to list definitions in the order of their contemporary preference, as dictionary.com does. Interestingly, Merriam-Webster uses the reverse order, listing the oldest definitions first, as in the case of "Decimated", which once meant reduced by one tenth but now means substantially destroyed:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimated
Note the difference in listing order.
> One possibility: dictionaries could report that a large fraction of English experts or teachers consider a particular usage incorrect.
Apart from the problem of choosing experts, I think this would only slow the natural rate of language evolution. I think the problem is deeper -- it asks whether language is (or should be) susceptible to evolution by means of natural selection as people's tastes and needs change.
But the dictionary didn't make a mistake. The word "literally" means what most people think, as well as its opposite. A dictionary's purpose is solely to report how people use words (it describes, it doesn't prescribe), and it got this use right.
> It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement.
That depends. Is this new definition out in the wild? Apparently so, in which case the listing is valid. Over at Webster's in the days of print, if a word was used with a particular meaning in ten recognized publications, it became official.
The figurative use of "literal" does not mean the opposite of the literal use (it doesn't mean "not literally (in its literal sense)", it means "as if literally (in its literal sense)".)
http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/literallygloss.htm
Quote: "For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of 'in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.'"
No, it doesn't. Its an intensifier that is used when the fact that the use is figurative is (assumed by the speaker/writer) to be clear from context. The use of "literally" is not a means of communicating the fact that the modified term is being used figuratively, it is used to convey the idea that the experience represented by the clearly-figurative use has unusual proximity to the experience that would occur were the modified term literally applicable.
Yes, lots of people say it means the exact opposite, but it doesn't, and you can't understand what people are saying when they use it if you think it does.
If you want to make the argument that the definition was improper, make the argument, but so far, it just sounds like you are asserting your preferred usage as the only allowed one, as there doesn't seem to be anything else offered to support your criticism.
You might think that, but you would be incorrect. This usage is very common, and much more widespread than 14 year old girls. Maybe the people in your circle don't use it that way, but the plural of anecdote is not data.
It's not a mistake -- people are free to use words any way they want. Also, the "literally" entry over a Merriam-Webster shows Norman Cousins using the word this way:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
Language isn't a science, it's an art. This is an example of artistic freedom.
No, not if both definitions are in use. Dictionaries are meant to describe, not prescribe, and both definitions exist.