This is literally the worst thing ever.

[Millky95]

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.

Incorrect. Both can have the same literal meaning or the sarcastic one. That comes down to tone. I could, totally believe you can jump over a river. I could also totally believe you. Both could be used in a literal sense or sarcastic one. Tonal issue.

Have no issue with words and languages evolving. Makes sense. Best example is the word gay. Originally meant happy, now means someone he is homosexual. No issues there. The issue becomes when a word now means its fucking opposite. Words should mean their antonym. If it's 5 degrees outside, I shouldn't say "it's hot outside" because hot can also mean cold

 

[GabeZhul]

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.

Incorrect. Both can have the same literal meaning or the sarcastic one. That comes down to tone. I could, totally believe you can jump over a river. I could also totally believe you. Both could be used in a literal sense or sarcastic one. Tonal issue.

That was kind of my point, you know? Hyperbolic and/or ironic and/or sarcastic meanings are dependent on the context. "Literally" is exactly the same. In fact most such descriptives can be (and generally are) used the same way, yet we don't see their meaning changed in the dictionary to address these inverse hyperboles.

So yeah, it's just annoying. I am not overly vexed about it though, since I know that language is not a top-down system that we can enforce if we don't like it changing (though there were admittedly some historical successes around the world when it came to language-reforms, but I digress), so we can't really do anything about it. If it's in colloquial use, it will bleed into the dictionary sooner or later.
I am just annoyed because it is a word we don't have a substitute for and because the dictionaries are making an exception for this word while, as I said above, practically all descriptives can be turned into inverse hyperboles like this yet we don't have an "informally it can mean the exact opposite depending on context" clause under each one of those.

 

[Alterego-X]

This case is often misunderstood. The problem is not really about some recent trend of intentional hyperbolic misuse, but about the fact that people are more and more likely to realize an established phrase's origin as a figure of speech.

I could say "Star Citizen will literally be a blockbuster", intending to communicate that I'm NOT being hyperbolic, and it's really, truly, honestly a famous big budget game and not just a slightly-larger-than-usual indie Kickstarter project.

But then someone really pedant could say "Oh, unless you expect it to be dropped from an airplane to blow up a neighborhood, you mean it is FIGURATIVELY a blockbuster". Which might indeed be the etymology of "blockbuster", but it has been used so frequently in the entertaiment industry meaning, that few people think of it as a figure of speech, the "literally" was there for entirely different reasons in the first place.

The same if I say "The Congress is literally in a gridlock", intending to emphasize that ALL lawmaking has stopped, I'm not being hyperbolic about a moderately slow legislative process, but to others, the image of Congress being stuchk in a traffic jam is figurative speech in itself.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

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

This isn't really a new thing though. I've just thumbed through my COD from 1999 and that gives the definitions of literally as:

1) adv. In a literal manner or sense.
2) informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true: We were literally killing ourselves laughing.

Although I do take your meaning. One of the more interesting points of language is how it develops over time and responds to social changes, but it is kind of depressing to see a language change simply because it is being warped by people who cannot use it properly.

 

[SteveTR]

Even though using "literally" in that sense is my pet peeve, I'm not really furious it's in a dictionary now. Languages evolve. Words that had a certain meaning a century ago mean something different now. Case in point, "dumb" and "gay". The scary thing about all this is that we're winessing it, as it's happening.

Also, I don't think it's gonna replace the correct meaning of the word. It might even vanish in a couple years, who knows. Just keep in mind that dictionaries are, at least from what I understand, supposed to encapsulate the language of the time. Some people use "literally" that way. It's not the dictionary's fault.

 

[Haru17]

No, nope, genocide and ethnic cleansing are still worse. But I ain't sure what could offend grammar-obsessed next.

 

[Seraj33]

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?

What is it with people on this site and their fear of a language evolving?
Ive seen it so many times here. "You can't say that! Thats stupid! You can't say it this or that way! They made this an actual defenition? HERESY, PURGE, KILL!!!"

I don't know if you all know this, but English did not look or sound the way it does now, 100 or even 50 years ago.
Languages change, get over it.

They didn't just make this change for shits and giggles people. They made this change because OBVIOUSLY people use the word litterary in this way very often.

 

[SoManyCrimes]

Full-time editor here. I find it interesting that people who work with language are usually the least bothered by stuff like this. The only reason I'd edit this use of "literally" is because it's boring. If someone's using it in a professional piece of writing, then there's always going to be a way to either cut it or use a more interesting phrasing. No-one is ever confused by the meaning, they're just annoyed by it.

But surely this new reactive use of "figuratively" is far weirder than the original usage it's trying to correct. I don't know of any dialect of English where it would be normal to say "this is figuratively the worst thing that ever happened". I'd expect something like: "this is the worst thing to ever happen, figuratively speaking". (Or, of course, the normal way, which would be to say "this is the worst thing that's ever happened" and rely on context.)

I'd predict that 99% of the instances of this new use of "figuratively" are people reacting to perceived misuse of "literally". Which seems... ironic? hypocritical?

But then they'll doubtless say that's not what those two words mean either...

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh, I could care less.

Yes, it's annoying, but there's no "proper" way of speaking English. Languages change naturally over time, if enough people start using the word differently, it loses the original meaning. If I was to write this in Old English, people would have a hard time understanding it, for example.

OTOH, if people say "cookie" when they mean "biscuit" I will glass them. That's not on.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Eh, same thing with decimate, a word that means "to reduce by 10%" has now morphed into meaning "ultimate destruction and defeat of your forces by the enemy!!"

Popular usage takes on it's own meaning for stuff, and to hell with the dictionary definition of it. It's always been like that. We can not like it all day, but good luck making the human culture start using it properly.

 

[fieryshadowcard]

Eh, I could care less.

Yes, it's annoying, but there's no "proper" way of speaking English. Languages change naturally over time, if enough people start using the word differently, it loses the original meaning. If I was to write this in Old English, people would have a hard time understanding it, for example.

OTOH, if people say "cookie" when they mean "biscuit" I will glass them. That's not on.

People's pet peeves with this aren't on how proper the usage of the word is. It's on how implementing a colloquial usage of the word as a standard definition that completely contradicts or obfuscates the original meaning undermines the entire point of making a standardized dictionary in the first place. Words start out with literal meanings, and it is literally the purpose of the dictionary to represent these meanings as the standard. Figurative language in general cannot exist without the words having a literal basis from which to start. Urban dictionaries derive from standardized dictionaries; they don't equate to them.

The literal usage of a word gives the figurative usage context AND impact. This has nothing to do with language changing so much as it has to do with language having a foundation from which to change.

Unless you're saying that 'Nobody' should mean both 'Anybody' and 'Everybody.'

Or that objectivity and subjectivity can be applied interchangeably.

Or that when a foreigner trying to learn the language consults a dictionary looking for a proper word for thin, they find fat.

Or that when I say shoe, it's okay that I mean belt

Edit: To clarify, this isn't an issue of spelling or conjugation. We're not talking about sneaked versus snuck. We're talking about inherent meaning here. What purpose does the word literally serve to anyone when, rather than its hyperbolic meaning deriving from its literal meaning, both are equally valid as standard definitions? And if that ends up being a precedent in standardization, then it means that every antonym in the thesaurus immediately and simultaneously becomes a synonym.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Unless you're saying that 'Nobody' should mean both 'Anybody' and 'Everybody.'

Or that objectivity and subjectivity can be applied interchangeably.

Or that when a foreigner trying to learn the language consults a dictionary looking for a proper word for thin, they find fat.

Or that when I say shoe, it's okay that I mean belt.

Do large numbers of people use those words that way?

Dictionaries are based on the reality of the way the words are used, not the other way around.

 

[happyninja42]

Eh, I could care less.

Yes, it's annoying, but there's no "proper" way of speaking English. Languages change naturally over time, if enough people start using the word differently, it loses the original meaning. If I was to write this in Old English, people would have a hard time understanding it, for example.

OTOH, if people say "cookie" when they mean "biscuit" I will glass them. That's not on.

People's pet peeves with this aren't on how proper the usage of the word is. It's on how implementing a colloquial usage of the word as a standard definition that completely contradicts or obfuscates the original meaning undermines the entire point of making a standardized dictionary in the first place. Words start out with literal meanings, and it is literally the purpose of the dictionary to represent these meanings as the standard. Figurative language in general cannot exist without the words having a literal basis from which to start. Urban dictionaries derive from standardized dictionaries; they don't equate to them.

The literal usage of a word gives the figurative usage context AND impact. This has nothing to do with language changing so much as it has to do with language having a foundation from which to change.

Unless you're saying that 'Nobody' should mean both 'Anybody' and 'Everybody.'

Or that objectivity and subjectivity can be applied interchangeably.

Or that when a foreigner trying to learn the language consults a dictionary looking for a proper word for thin, they find fat.

Or that when I say shoe, it's okay that I mean belt.

Well it's ok to talk about testicles as "balls", nevermind that balls are something you can play various sports games with. Or in some cultures the word they use is "egg" to mean testicles. Or how you can use the word Dick to mean a penis, or the short hand name for someone who's birth name is Richard. It can also be used as an insult.

So in our language, it apparently is ok to say shoe, and mean belt, because we've co-opted plenty of words that mean one thing, and use them to mean something completely different.

 

[fieryshadowcard]

Unless you're saying that 'Nobody' should mean both 'Anybody' and 'Everybody.'

Or that objectivity and subjectivity can be applied interchangeably.

Or that when a foreigner trying to learn the language consults a dictionary looking for a proper word for thin, they find fat.

Or that when I say shoe, it's okay that I mean belt.

Do large numbers of people use those words that way?

Dictionaries are based on the reality of the way the words are used, not the other way around.

Actually, large numbers of people do use nobody, anybody and everybody interchangeably. But that's a colloquial use, and emphasizes my point. The subsequent examples are not about actual use and weren't meant as such. They're about the precedent set when the official dictionary of a language starts adopting the idea that the inherent meaning of a word also has a contrary meaning, or by association, none at all.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Don' want no con-fyoo-zee-un wit muh woids!

Dictionaries often include common usage, noting that it is not correct. It is unfortunate that people don't know proper usage, but I'm going to have to disagree with your assertion that it is the 'worst thing ever.' There are starving kids in Africa who would literally be very happy to have that word!

So what's our go-to word for literally now that literally means not at all? Actually?

 

[Seraj33]

So what's our go-to word for literally now that literally means not at all? Actually?

Literally.

 

[Johnny Impact]

So what's our go-to word for literally now that literally means not at all? Actually?

Literally.

I like it. Simple, direct, concise. I second the motion. Humanity, did you hear that? Literally means literally again!

 

[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?

What is it with people on this site and their fear of a language evolving?
Ive seen it so many times here. "You can't say that! Thats stupid! You can't say it this or that way! They made this an actual defenition? HERESY, PURGE, KILL!!!"

I don't know if you all know this, but English did not look or sound the way it does now, 100 or even 50 years ago.
Languages change, get over it.

They didn't just make this change for shits and giggles people. They made this change because OBVIOUSLY people use the word litterary in this way very often.

"Language evolving" isn't some perfect defense against all language use complaints. If the meaning of a word changes just because peolpe can't be bothered to understand what it means, that's a different thing from new meanings created by necessity.

 

[smithy_2045]

I'm going to add this to my list of reasons to hate everyone. It's getting long.