This is literally the worst thing ever.

[Queen Michael]

The Merriam-Webster now recognizes "in effect, virtually" as a definition of "literally." No, really. You can check it here, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally] and read an article on the subject over here. [http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/] So in other words, it's purportedly no longer wrong to say "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse."

What are your thoughts on this blasphemy against all that is holy?

 

[Zak757]

This is figuratively the most enraging thing ever.

 

[TheIceQueen]

I get that language changes over time as people use it, but why this? Literally has ever been the opposite of figuratively. Language changes, but this isn't so much a change, rather twisting and misusing it.

 

[JoJo]

I'm not too fussed really. Language evolves and as irritating as the more recent usage is, it's unlikely to go away any time soon. It isn't the only example of a word being used to mean it's opposite in certain cases either, see 'wicked', 'sick', etc, I'm sure people won't have much difficulty telling the two meanings apart based on context like we do for these other words.

 

[Barbas]

I shan't be getting on board with it, frankly. Up with this shit, I will not put. Messrs Merriam and Webster can eat my ass.

Spoiler: Facial expression is simulated, indignation is not.

EDIT: I just won't be going by that definition. Eh *shrugs*.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

As a lit student, I can tell you that people have been misusing literally since James Joyce.

It's kind of a tough one because while it is obviously factually incorrect and grinds my gears (figuratively speaking of course), a lot of the time it is used as intentional hyperbole, and to be fair to Merriam-Webster they have noted that in their entry.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I never understood the outrage over the supposed misuse of "literally". If someone says "I could eat a horse" that's perfectly fine. Everyone understands that the person is not capable of eating a whole horse. They are lying for comedic effect. They are being hyperbolic.

But if someone says "I could literally eat a horse" all that understanding flies out the window. It's okay to lie about your willingness to a horse! But don't you dare lie about how literally you intend your claim to be interpreted!

 

[Stasisesque]

As a lit student, I can tell you that people have been misusing literally since James Joyce.

Waaaaay longer than that. It goes back at least as far as Thackeray and the Brontes, Google tells me there are 17th century examples of misuse. Joyce, however, only used it in focalisation so he was most likely using it to reflect its misuse and his characters' "ignorance".

Personally, I love how language changes and evolves and have absolutely no issue with this. I'm also a literature student, I reckon we just don't care as much.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

This is figuratively the most enraging thing ever.

LOL! I see what you did there. I am literally laughing my arse off now.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

As a lit student, I can tell you that people have been misusing literally since James Joyce.

Waaaaay longer than that. It goes back at least as far as Thackeray and the Brontes, Google tells me there are 17th century examples of misuse. Joyce, however, only used it in focalisation so he was most likely using it to reflect its misuse and his characters' "ignorance".

Personally, I love how language changes and evolves and have absolutely no issue with this. I'm also a literature student, I reckon we just don't care as much.

*fistbump*

OED tells me the first entry goes back to 1769, and includes some rather glibe examples from, among others, Mark Twain. And Joyce loves his focalisation. I remember the lecture where they pointed that out and said "Well, I think it's safe to say that James Joyce understands the difference between 'literally' and 'figuratively', so...

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Wonderful, so "literally" can now mean exactly the opposite of its definition. Way to go, English speakers.

 

[epicdwarf]

After selfie was added I knew it would come to something like this. What is next? It's and its being interchangeable? Emojis being recognized as words? Meme being recognized as a word?

 

[Queen Michael]

After selfie was added I knew it would come to something like this. What is next? It's and its being interchangeable? Emojis being recognized as words? Meme being recognized as a word?

"Meme" has been recognized as a word for decades.

 

[NoeL]

I'm expecting "could care less", "should of" and "your" as an accepted spelling of "you're" to make their way in over the next few years too. Also "peaked/peeked my interest."

But when it comes down to it, language is just a tool for communication. In all these cases the intended message is still being effectively communicated even if they're using the wrong words, so the people that get irritated by it are really just being elitist snobs yelling at clouds.

That said, fuck those clouds, and fuck anyone that uses incorrect English! (ironically, just a few hundred years ago they would've said this post is riddled with incorrect English)

 

[Signa]

After selfie was added I knew it would come to something like this. What is next? It's and its being interchangeable? Emojis being recognized as words? Meme being recognized as a word?

I'd be OK with its and it's being changed. They are almost redundant, and are an exception to rules regarding possessives.

Literally, though, I'm not quite as accepting of. You can literally use it in any expression now, because it means both "seriously" and "no, not seriously."

 

[buchno]

"Literally"?
The English language doesn't have any such word [http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/185932/recommended-replacement-for-literally].

 

[chiggerwood]

The Merriam-Webster now recognizes "in effect, virtually" as a definition of "literally." No, really. You can check it here, [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally] and read an article on the subject over here. [http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/] So in other words, it's purportedly no longer wrong to say "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse."

What are your thoughts on this blasphemy against all that is holy?

This is nothing new. Literally has been used in the figurative form since at the very least, 1760. Great authors such as James Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens, Alexander Pope, and one the greatest masters of the English tongue Vladimir Nabokov. It is a perfectly fine use of the word that has been around for, quite literally, centuries. Now please allow the free and happy use the one of the, if not, THE, most diverse and flexible languages in the world. Also educate yourself, here's a couple videos that'll help.

 

[beastro]

So in other words, it's purportedly no longer wrong to say "I'm so hungry I could literally eat a horse."

What are your thoughts on this blasphemy against all that is holy?

Says who?

Simply because some dictionary says so doesn't make it so.

Thank God English isn't a Continental language and under the boot of some government ministry.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I never understood the outrage over the supposed misuse of "literally". If someone says "I could eat a horse" that's perfectly fine. Everyone understands that the person is not capable of eating a whole horse. They are lying for comedic effect. They are being hyperbolic.

But if someone says "I could literally eat a horse" all that understanding flies out the window. It's okay to lie about your willingness to a horse! But don't you dare lie about how literally you intend your claim to be interpreted!

I honestly never thought about it like this before and to be honest, and on the internet im sure this is rare, this literally changed my mind 180 degrees from thinking "This is stupid" to "This is obvious".

So with this view in mind it seems like all that has happened is the dictionary decided that when one is being facetious, ironic, sarcastic or hyperbolic words might not mean what they originally do and, somewhat un-necessarily ill grant you, has made the most common usage of this an official definition. Shock horror. I'll be sure to guard the children whilst we burn out the taint.