This is literally the worst thing ever.

[BiscuitTrouser]

That that is why whoever came up with this is an idiot; you can't have a word also mean its opposite. That is going to become confusing as hell. I literally want to slap this person.

See? You can't tell if I'm serious or not because "literally" could go either way now. That is counter to productive communication.

"Wow this is such a good comment. Youre SO smart. Youre SO insightful. I wish i was as smart as you!"

See how language can TOTALLY have words mean the opposite of their definition Its been happening for a while, and theres LOTS of scenarios where one totally reverses their entire scentences meaning using contextual clues like sarcasm or hyperbole which in the case of literally is the latter. If i say youre smart i either mean youre smart or if im being obviously sarcastic im saying youre dumb. Smart, depending on HOW i say it means either smart or dumb. And yet communication is only enhanced by this feature! Witchcraft :O

Its odd that these selfsame people dont get mad at me for often using smart to mean dumb or simple to mean complex when i employ sarcasm. Im cearly perverting the language

 

[Mikeyfell]

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?

Old news.
English is dead.
Rejoice!

Besides Weird Al made a song about it so it's not all bad.


Next on the agenda for the Destruction of English Society get "Incapable" defined as "able"

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

That this is literally old news. Which version am I using? I will leave you to decide.

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!

Everyone has triggers and pet peeves. Look at the reaction to the question "Am I the only one?" around here. It's mellowed out a little, but steeeeeel. Meanwhile, if you use another figure of speech in the same thread, people will literally understand you perfectly.

'Literally' is literally another case, possibly a little more severe, since it's literally internet wide. Nitpicking use of "literal" has literally risen to the unironic use of irony (especially if used in conjunction with rain on your wedding day). It's literally a pain in the ass, but what can you do?

 

[SoranMBane]

I kind of wish they would at least specify that that's a non-standard slang definition of the word for the sake of clarity, but otherwise, I think this is literally the most trivial thing ever to get up-in-arms about. I have literally never seen anyone misuse the word "literally" because they "didn't understand how to use it properly." It's only ever been people using it facetiously for comedic effect, and I see nothing particularly wrong with a dictionary acknowledging that common usage.

 

[FPLOON]

Spoiler: *cough*

http://s.mlpforums.com/uploads/post_images/img-1557050-3-FYkc74B.gif

But seriously, this is not surprising that this is literally turning people's head in a metaphorical way... For me personally, I'll keep saying that it won't be long before the Urban Dictionary is, literally, the one and only true dictionary for all your word-defining means...

#notalldictionaries

 

[Silvanus]

Am I the only one against fundamentally changing the English language for the benefit of lazy dumbasses who can't be bothered to learn to speak it properly?

While I do object to this example (because "literally" should exist to fulfil the niche it's most useful for, and removing specific meaning renders it useless for that), I must point out that if you're against morphing the English language for the benefit of the lazy, you should really be speaking Old English or something.

 

[epicdwarf]

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

I meant it being recognized as an internet inside joke. Not as "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture." Sort of like what they are doing to "literally" here.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

Seriously?! This is literally a literary clusterfuck. Instead of educating people, let's just bow to the ones who can't be bothered to learn what words mean.

 

[Colour Scientist]

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'm seconding this.

Am I the only one against fundamentally changing the English language for the benefit of lazy dumbasses who can't be bothered to learn to speak it properly?

Seriously?! This is literally a literary clusterfuck. Instead of educating people, let's just bow to the ones who can't be bothered to learn what words mean.

Language, not just the English language, changes all of the time. Language is constantly in a state of flux, changing the dictionary reflects how people are actually using the word.

 

[Stasisesque]

Seriously?! This is literally a literary clusterfuck. Instead of educating people, let's just bow to the ones who can't be bothered to learn what words mean.

Yeah, I mean this has never happened before.

Custom. Means both standard and specialised.
Replace. To put back or to place something else.
Sanction. Permit or not permit.

Fast means both to move quickly and to not move at all.

There is literally no chance the colloquial addition of literally will change anything about the way people use English.

 

[GabeZhul]

This is not really news to be honest.

Honestly, I have more problem with the principle than the particulars. If we are including hyperbolic inversions as part of the word's definition, all of our definitive words will lose their meaning and we have to invent new ones, which then allows the process to start from the beginning.

For example, the word "totally":
"I totally agree with you."
In this sentence it means that whatever the other person's opinions is, you agree with it fully and without a clause.
"Yeah, I can totally believe that you can jump over that river."
In this sentence it is used to express sarcasm and disbelief over the claim of the person, meaning that you do not agree with them.

If we take the process "literally" went through, you can apply it to any similar words that are used in the same kinds of hyperboles, so I think it is a problematic precedent that actually causes confusion.
But then again, it's not like we can do anything about it...

 

[chiggerwood]

Seriously?! This is literally a literary clusterfuck. Instead of educating people, let's just bow to the ones who can't be bothered to learn what words mean.

Yeah, I mean this has never happened before.

Custom. Means both standard and specialised.
Replace. To put back or to place something else.
Sanction. Permit or not permit.

Fast means both to move quickly and to not move at all.

There is literally no chance the colloquial addition of literally will change anything about the way people use English.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, DEAR MEATY ZEUS! Thank you.I wonder if back in Shakespeare's time, when he was inventing new words and new ways to use words if he faced this tiresome inanity from the pedantic crowd. "Eyeball isn't a word!" They would shout, but where are they now? I'm not honestly asking, because I ,like history, don't give a shit, and really I don't think we should give shit about the pedantic crowd now. Instead, let's just use the worlds most wonderfully diverse language how we please, and ignore them. Before my eyes literally roll out of my head in protest.

 

[ExileNZ]

This is literally the... dammit, you already made that joke in the title.

I'm horrified.

 

[Caffiene]

The problem is that concepts like hyperbole and sarcasm are meta-concepts which contextually alter what is being expressed, but Merriam-Webster have treated them as though they are a fundamental property of the word itself.

Hyperbolic use of the word "literally" changes the meaning of what is being expressed, but it doesn't change the meaning of the actual word "literally". In fact, it relies on the meaning not changing: Hyperbole indicates that the message being conveyed is exaggerated beyond the meaning of the words used. If the meaning changes, then how do we know if hyperbole is being used or not? What happens when somebody applies hyperbole to the new figurative meaning of "literally" - is the intended meaning now doubly hyperbolic?

Posters above have demonstrated the problem through sarcasm pretty conclusively, I think. Consider what would happen if we applied the same reasoning to sarcasm - eg,"Oh, smaaaart" is often used sarcastically, so Merriam Webster now defines "smart" to mean both "intelligent" and also "not intelligent". What would be the interpretation now when I say "Oh, smaaart" in a sarcastic tone of voice? Am I being sarcastic about the old meaning, or the new meaning?

Can we apply the same logic to numbers? "Its a million degrees outside!" -> "Million is now defined as 43. Or 109, depending on location."

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

People tend to use the word literally in an ironic, jokey or hyperbole filled manner.
Dictionary edits itself to show that (shock horror, dictionaries keep up with the times!).
Que nerd rage over something which is kinda insignificant.

This is literally the most inconsequential thing.

 

[L. Declis]

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!

The reason it is very annoying is because "literally" is meant to be there to state when something is no longer hyperbolic or sarcastic. It's a word that is present to say that, hey, this sentence is completely true, even the unbelievable parts.

So when it's co-opted as hyperbole, you've essentially removed a perfectly good word with a needed meaning because it seems a vast amount of undereducated people would rather the world adapt to them than bother to change a slight verbal tick.

It's doubly annoying because they won.

The thing is these are the people who will replace "intents and purposes" with "intensive purposes" or "dog eat dog world" to "doggy dog world".

It's lazy and make the language a less interesting place to hang out, and for that, we should be sad.