21–30 of 42 posts
Languages 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.
Languages 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…
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.
Languages 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.
"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
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly...
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.
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"...!
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. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?…
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.