This is literally the worst thing ever.
- Thread starter Queen Michael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That this is literally old news. Which version am I using? I will leave you to decide.Queen Michael said:
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.manic_depressive13 said:
'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?
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.
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
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.Jonathan Hornsby said:
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.
I'm seconding this.manic_depressive13 said:
Jonathan Hornsby said:
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.Ten Foot Bunny said:
Yeah, I mean this has never happened before.Ten Foot Bunny said:
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.
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...
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...
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.Stasisesque said:
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.manic_depressive13 said:
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.
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.GabeZhul said:
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
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.Millky95 said:
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.
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.
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.
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:Queen Michael said:
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.
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.
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.