This is literally the worst thing ever.
- Thread starter Queen Michael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What is it with people on this site and their fear of a language evolving?Queen Michael said:
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
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!!"TheIceQueen said:
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.
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.thaluikhain said:
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.
Do large numbers of people use those words that way?fieryshadowcard said:
Dictionaries are based on the reality of the way the words are used, not the other way around.
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.fieryshadowcard said:
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.
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.thaluikhain said:
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?
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?
I like it. Simple, direct, concise. I second the motion. Humanity, did you hear that? Literally means literally again!Seraj33 said:
"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.Seraj33 said:
you'renevertheonlyone and all that.Jonathan Hornsby said:
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.
And while it might be different, it could adequately be used to describe most linguistic changes.Queen Michael said:
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
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
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.Jonathan Hornsby said:
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.
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.Queen Michael said:
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.
Did anyone post this yet?
Things change, people hate change. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Things change, people hate change. The more things change the more they stay the same.