

Google's Definition of 'Literally' - alecbibat
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+literally&oq=define+literally&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j0l3j69i62l2.7007j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

======
D_Alex
Eh.., I'll put in the Urban Dictionary's definition, for reference:

literally : used to describe something that actually happens or exists. A much
misused adverb, often for emphasis. People often confuse this word with
figuratively.

"I literally died of embarrassment."

"Really? How was reincarnation, you illiterate dipshit?"

------
barnabask
When I literally want to use the word "literally" literally, I will now say
"non-figuratively", as in "I non-figuratively cannot believe it's come to
this."

------
lutusp
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.

~~~
D_Alex
Counterpoint, from [http://theweek.com/article/index/241002/how-the-wrong-
defini...](http://theweek.com/article/index/241002/how-the-wrong-definition-
of-literally-snuck-into-the-dictionary)

>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"...!

~~~
kivikakk
"completely incorrect" is useless prescriptivism. They can call it incorrect
all they like, it won't stop anyone.

~~~
D_Alex
It may be ineffective prescriptivism. The usefulness is in the fact that we
should have a word that unambiguously means "in a strict sense, without
exaggeration".

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!"

~~~
mtowle
>the fact that we should

Can't have a factual should. Shoulds are normative.

>What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite

Is the word really useless or indeed useful if no one can provide a 'real'
example of actual ambiguity between the two meanings? Furthermore, it's not as
if ambiguity between one meaning and an opposite meaning is the greatest
ambiguity there is-- if anything, it makes it particularly obvious which
meaning the speaker intends.

~~~
Chris2048
Surely you can if a source of reference is used? i.e "fact we should" = "fact
that most of society believes we should"?

------
pragmar
The misuse of the term seems to date back three centuries, and has been abused
for literary effect by many notable authors, including F. Scott Fitzgerald,
Mark Twain, Jane Austin and Luisa May Alcott. So it seems perfectly acceptable
to use the second definition with a wink, casually letting your audience know
you know they know.

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-
polly...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-
curtis/2012/mar/12/reality-check-literally-wrong-use-word)

------
shurcooL
On my way home yesterday, I thought I'd invent a new natural language.

The definition of what is valid, legal would be simple: if 80% of English
speaking population understands it, then it's legal. So typos and stuff like
this would not be considered a mistake. THere fore the FolloWing wouldz bee
valid alsoo.

But then I'd have to define what it means to speak English, which would
require a lot of complex rules, etc. Then I thought it would be pointless, as
it wouldn't matter if I wrote this down or not. People would still understand
each other and go on about their lives.

~~~
JasonSage
You, sir, just made my night.

------
a3voices
Languages change over time. "Goodbye" originated from "God be with you", but I
don't see anyone complaining about it.

~~~
mjgoins
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.

~~~
lutusp
The alternative is for some "authority" to tell people what words mean, rather
than ask them. This is not what dictionaries are for.

~~~
_dps
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?" Well, how did we pick the people
whose diction the dictionary supposedly represents? :) We make do with
approximations. I think that the OED could easily afford to sample 1000
English teachers ranging from professors to grade school, and ranging across
many geographical regions and social strata. It would actually be fascinating
data to see alongside a definition!

Edit: I had meant to add that the sampling for the words need not happen for
every (word, expert) combination; giving each instructor 1000 words chosen
uniformly from a pool of 10,000 words should get you reasonable coverage for
almost all of those 10,000 words. So the costs of this sampling experiment on
both OED and the expert volunteers would be quite low.

~~~
lutusp
> 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.

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](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://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/decimate)

[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimated](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.

------
jasomill
[http://xkcd.com/1108/](http://xkcd.com/1108/)

------
glomph
This has been true of the word 'literally' for hundreds of years. People seem
to have coped. Pedants have just become more vocal since the internet.

------
iancarroll
They should just remove the first definition.

~~~
westicle
They should _literally_ just remove the first definition.

------
thenewway
So if a tree falls in the forest _literally_ , does it?

~~~
gizmo686
Of course the tree falls into the forest literally. The correct question is
does it actually [fall in the forest].

