Google's Definition of 'Literally'

[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...

>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"...!

[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...

[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.

[leephillips]

It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake without someone helpfully pointing out that language changes (over time, even). We know that. We might know that, be well-behaved descriptivists, and yet still think that this definition is wrong. Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement. That doesn't mean that it won't be justified in another 40 years or so.

[jasomill]

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.

[lutusp]

> They should just remove the first definition.

No, not if both definitions are in use. Dictionaries are meant to describe, not prescribe, and both definitions exist.

[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].