This is not at all surprising. Other online dictionaries list both definitions as well, on the ground that a dictionary's purpose is to dispassionately report how people use words, not try to be consistent when people aren't consistent.
Google's Definition of 'Literally'
11–20 of 42 posts
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#12Languages change over time. "Goodbye" originated from "God be with you", but I don't see anyone complaining about it.
But when "literally" means "figuratively", how do you express the concept that "literally" used to mean? You have to go out of your way to circumlocute, which is at least annoying, if nothing else.
The alternative is for some "authority" to tell people what words mean, rather than ask them. This is not what dictionaries are for.
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#13Languages change over time. "Goodbye" originated from "God be with you", but I don't see anyone complaining about it.
It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake without someone helpfully pointing out that language changes (over time, even). We know that. We might know that, be well-behaved descriptivists, and yet still think that this definition is wrong . Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgeme…
> yet still think that this definition is wrong. Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement.
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.
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake without someone helpfully pointing out that language changes (over time, even). We know that. We might know that, be well-behaved descriptivists, and yet still think that this definition is wrong . Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgeme…
If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake, you're literally wrong.
> If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake ...
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
Language isn't a science, it's an art. This is an example of artistic freedom.
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#15When I literally want to use the word "literally" literally, I will now say "non-figuratively", as in "I non-figuratively cannot believe it's come to this."
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#16This is not at all surprising. Other online dictionaries list both definitions as well, on the ground that a dictionary's purpose is to dispassionately report how people use words, not try to be consistent when people aren't consistent.
Counterpoint, from http://theweek.com/article/index/241002/how-the-wrong-defini...
>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"...!
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
But when "literally" means "figuratively", how do you express the concept that "literally" used to mean? You have to go out of your way to circumlocute, which is at least annoying, if nothing else.
The alternative is for some "authority" to tell people what words mean, rather than ask them. This is not what dictionaries are for.
I share your dislike for a central language authority, but I think there are non-authoritative solutions that are consistent with the missions and practices of dictionaries.
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.
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake without someone helpfully pointing out that language changes (over time, even). We know that. We might know that, be well-behaved descriptivists, and yet still think that this definition is wrong . Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgeme…
> It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake ... 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 judgeme…
> But the dictionary didn't make a mistake. The word "literally" means what most people think, as well as its opposite.
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)".)
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#19This is not at all surprising. Other online dictionaries list both definitions as well, on the ground that a dictionary's purpose is to dispassionately report how people use words, not try to be consistent when people aren't consistent.
Counterpoint, from http://theweek.com/article/index/241002/how-the-wrong-defini... >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"...!
"completely incorrect" is useless prescriptivism. They can call it incorrect all they like, it won't stop anyone.
Re: Google's Definition of 'Literally'
#20Languages change over time. "Goodbye" originated from "God be with you", but I don't see anyone complaining about it.
But when "literally" means "figuratively", how do you express the concept that "literally" used to mean? You have to go out of your way to circumlocute, which is at least annoying, if nothing else.
[deleted]