This is literally the worst thing ever.

[Something Amyss]

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?

you'renevertheonlyone and all that.

In any case, you understand that your post is full of grammatical issues only acceptable because language has been changed, yes? That, just like use of literally, this is possible because language evolves? You're using modern terms, modern uses of words, and modern sentence structure? I mean, by you logic, does that make you too lazy to learn to speak it properly? I doubt you think of yourself as a "dumbass," after all. And what of "dumbass?" I doubt you intended to call people mute donkeys. You probably meant one of those fundamentally changed definitions.

In any event, dictionaries don't decide word use. They reflect upon it. The dictionary updates to reflect the way we use words. This is actually particularly behind the times. People have been using "literally" to describe figurative things for ages. "Jiggy" was updated in less time.

I mean, is it funny that "literally" now can actually mean "not literally?" Yes. Yes it is. It's kind of hilarious. But is it a fundamental change to the English language?

Not particularly.

 

[Something Amyss]

"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.

And while it might be different, it could adequately be used to describe most linguistic changes.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

While I do realize that language changes over time, this one bothers me particularly because it's just another word on the steady slide of using words that imply the absence of hyperbole are being used to just make the hyperbole bigger. Notable current victims are literally and objectively. I seriously doubt that there will ever be a word that can be used to mean "without hyperbole, exaggeration or metaphor" because whenever one is made it will just be turned into a phrase to make the hyperbole just THAT much hyperbolic.

Also, I've been in so many situations where you can't actually tell whether they intend it as figuratively or literally. Phrases like "I literally lost all of my stuff in the flood" could very easily mean just that or that they just lost a handful of things and are bummed about it. It's a use that frequently requires qualification, and is a really stupid twist of meanings.

Seriously, it's gotten to the point where when I hear the word literally I automatically assume figuratively instead. Same with objectively, I'll just assume subjectively. So... while this isn't Merriam-Webster's fault, I'm still annoyed with how I no longer have words to express "literally" or "objectively" with

 

[chiggerwood]

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?

Lazy dumbasses you say? So James Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens, Alexander Pope, and Demigod of the English tongue, Vladimir Nabokov are all lazy dumbasses? Some of the greatest authors in the English language are Lazy dumbasses? Riiiiiiiiight. Hey here's a few fun facts about common words in use today.

1. Vulgar used to mean common.

2. Awful used to mean inspiring wonder.

3. Villain used to refer to any character not just the antagonist.

4. Egregious used to mean remarkably good.

5. Last used to mean highest and upmost.

The more you know.

 

[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.

"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.

Well, if the majority of the population uses a word "incorrectly" then who is the one who is incorrect? The point of a language is that the two or more participants of a conversation understands what the other is saying, trying to describe or explain. And there is much more than just WORDS behind understanding. There is tone of voice, the context of the conversation and so on.

If someone says literally in a sentence, do you have a really really hard time understanding what the person meant? I don't think so.
As other posters have said in this thread, there are many many more examples of these kinds of double meaning words.

And besides, it is not like the meaning of the word has just magically changed over-night. People have used it both ways, all the damn time. And because of that, it is now a part of the language officially as well.

Languages DO change. And not only because of "necessity" but because of small steady changes like this as well. The goal while talking to someone is not to flaunt who can be the most "correct", it is to make yourself understood.

 

[Able Seacat]

Did anyone post this yet?

Spoiler

Things change, people hate change. The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[COMaestro]

I believe this is appropriate for this thread:


I am literally against this addition to the Merriam-Webster dictionary and the people who made the decision can go jump in a lake, figuratively or literally, their choice.

 

[sageoftruth]

My only concern is, if literally now means "figuratively", then what's the new word for "literally"? I don't mind words changing, but if we don't have a replacement handy for the old definition, then we've effectively handicapped ourselves as users of language.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

My only concern is, if literally now means "figuratively", then what's the new word for "literally"? I don't mind words changing, but if we don't have a replacement handy for the old definition, then we've effectively handicapped ourselves as users of language.

The definition hasn't changed, the dictionary has merely been updated to note that, in informal contexts, people use the world "literally" for hyperbole or emphasis.

 

[Twinrehz]

I've had to stop being annoyed by people using certain expressions and words fundamentally wrong. It still bothers me, but it seems people are hellbent on mistreating language. A while back I encountered a particular case in a youtube-comment. It seemed there was actually some interesting info in the post, but the wording was a mess, and punctuation non-existent, so I was so bold as to tell him that. The response I received was that he couldn't be bothered to type properly just because it wasn't school-related.

And that, I believe, is terrible. Why would anyone think that just because it's on the internet it's okay to not give a fuck about what you're typing, as long as you're typing something that looks like words? Does it not make sense to write something that doesn't have to be deciphered by the recipient before the message becomes clear? Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

On-topic: Butchering of language is nothing new. The norwegian word for hold onto and roof is identical (tak), and this happened sometime in the 16th century. Semantics, I suppose, but now a particular word-sound is on the brink of disappearing, which will cause the word for chain, and one of the less offensive words for vagina to end up becoming identical. This, to me, sounds like a problem for the future.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

This is figuratively the most enraging thing ever.

That was the best first response to a thread I have seen in ages.

Thank you.

OT: No. Don't want. End of discussion for me.

 

[Batou667]

I could care less. As long as the language is more and less correct there's no need to split hares.

 

[Doclector]

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?

To be fair, I've said that I could literally eat a horse many times, and never been wrong. Might take several days and a large freezer, but I'll get through it.

But yeah, this...this does not bode well.

 

[bauke67]

Having read the title I was on my way to point out your probable misuse of the word literally, but it seems I stand corrected: this is, literally, the worst thing ever.

 

[Chris Moses]

Wow, I need to get out more. I literally didn't know that people did this. That this was a thing that needed a definition nor a situation to generate ire over.

Not sure how I feel about it. If we start to include the sarcastic and hyperbolic definitions of words, where does it end? Logically I can't tell you because logic seems to have been abandoned here.

I am a fan of logic when I have time to think about it, so I guess I am again' it.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

I love this, anything that gets grammar nazis upset is pleasing to me. All I want now is to have the phrase "could care less" officially recognized so I can watch more big butt hurt tears and laugh.