Literally

The overuse of 'literally' winds me up as well.

So does the use of 'epic' being used in every other sentence to describe almost nothing being 'not bad'.
 
The 'common usage' thing is a crock. If it was popular belief that the world was flat, would we change our Geography books to reflect it?

Changing the definition of a word because so many people use it incorrectly is not 'adapting to modern usage' as people like the OED like to defend things like this, it is simply changing a wrong answer into a right one so people don't have to bother learning the correct use.

I don't mind changes where a word has taken on a new meaning, like when they added 'homosexual' to 'happy' the definition of the word gay but with 'literally' it has a precise meaning and the misuse makes it the complete opposite which is just confusing.

If you accept that literally can be used to add emphasis, then what replaces it? How do you now write something that shows the reader you mean exactly what you said?
 
Col_M said:
I tend to go along with the views of the mighty Stephen Fry.


English is a mongrel language that is constantly evolving from the influence of other languages, popular culture, writers, immigrants and a whole number of other things. Words change meaning all the time, you just have to get used to it in the same way you just have to get used to the changes in technology, you certainly can't stop it. ;)
Click to expand...

I love that video and from it I infer :D that we are constantly growing and developing our language.

Forums (the internet type, not the ancient Roman type) are usually full of pedants with nothing actually useful to add and so thy will spend their time 'correcting' spellings and grammar. Every time I see a misuse of 'their, they're or there' in a topic title I click it knowing that no more than three posts down there will be someone pointing out the grammatical error of the poor OP's ways. That is so much more annoying than some words being used in an 'incorrect' manner.
 
Last edited:
ITT; People discover that the OED is descriptive not prescriptive.

It literally says that here:

http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/guide-to-the-third-edition-of-the-oed/

The Oxford English Dictionary is not an arbiter of proper usage, despite its widespread reputation to the contrary. The Dictionary is intended to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, its content should be viewed as an objective reflection of English language usage, not a subjective collection of usage ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’. However, it does include information on which usages are, or have been, popularly regarded as ‘incorrect’. The Dictionary aims to cover the full spectrum of English language usage, from formal to slang, as it has evolved over time.
Click to expand...
"Literally", you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Unless enough people think it means what you think it means in which case it means what you think it means.

:p
 
Last edited:
This thread had 'Literally' taken over... it seems to have merged (in part) with the 'Random Images' thread!

L54q456.jpg
 
I don't think it is an issue when words take on a different meaning to their original one but only when it has been quite obviously taken out of context.

An example would be when people say "that is so sweet" we know that they mean something is good.

Catering to peoples obvious ignorance is just stupid however. People misuse literally to mean "I very nearly" which is just confusing. I don't care that most people do it, its just idiotic and should not be encouraged. I know language is always evolving but as someone else has pointed out, its not evolution if you are just catering to the thickos who shouldn't be asked what day it is let alone their views on the language they *******ise on a daily basis.
 
Col_M said:
I tend to go along with the views of the mighty Stephen Fry.


English is a mongrel language that is constantly evolving from the influence of other languages, popular culture, writers, immigrants and a whole number of other things. Words change meaning all the time, you just have to get used to it in the same way you just have to get used to the changes in technology, you certainly can't stop it. ;)
Click to expand...

The problem is Fry is showing examples where there is no confusion about the end result so technicalities don't matter. No one can be confused by "5 items or less" to mean anything but you may have 1 to 5 items and no more to use that till. The technicality is pedantry because it doesn't change the context of what is being conveyed.

If, however, we accept that literally can now mean both "it happened" and "It didn't happen and I'm exaggerating for effect" then we have a problem because the word 'literally' then serves no function.

Imagine if the OED stated the word Red can equally mean Blue, a problem is caused. Next time you order a car you have to say "I want it in red, and I mean actual red and not blue", it makes conversing longer than sticking to red just meaning red. The same is true for literally.

Fry's video is about language evolving for the better, to make it simpler, less technical and quicker. I have no problem with that kind of evolution but I don't think confusing the meaning of 'literally' does that, it confuses and removes a word with very few synonyms.

Now when I was a kid I would use the word 'bad' to mean 'very good'. You could argue this is similar but the main difference is there are plenty of other words for good and any confusion can be cleared up quickly. Also the way in which I said it made it clear how I meant it. None of the above applies to literally.

Let's say a truck is going down the road and a box falls from it with laptop in. Currently I could say "It literally fell off the back of a lorry" which means "I'm not using the common metaphor for theft, it actually fell from a moving vehicle". But if you accept the OED's proposed change to the definition then I could be saying "This thing is really stolen".

It's just confusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom