Literally

[dr_mabeuse]

I’m horrified.

I just looked up the word “literally” in the on line One-look Online Dictionary (http://www.onelook.com/) and found this definition:

adverb: (intensifier before a figurative expression) without exaggeration (Example: "Our eyes were literally pinned to TV during the Gulf war")

Merriam Webster has this:

1: in a literal sense or manner : ACTUALLY <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
2 : in effect : VIRTUALLY <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice -- Norman Cousins>
usage: Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

First of all, to say “Our eyes were literally pinned to TV during the Gulf War” without exaggeration means that pins were driven through their eyes and into the TV set. Of course it’s exaggerating. So either that first definition is faulty or the example is.

Secondly, I always thought that the word “literally” was meant literally. That is, in the sense of Webster’s definition number 1. To literally turn the world upside down meant to make like Archimedes with a big lever and actually turn it over in space. Now Webster is telling us in defintion # 2 that that’s exactly what it doesn’t mean. “Literally” now means “figuratively”?!

The reason I looked the word up was because I was just about to take an author to task for writing about some girl who was “literally running through [his] mind”. Now I find that they’ve changed the definition on us.

I’m aghast.

---dr.M.

 

[minsue]

I've always been irritated by the use of literally meaning figuratively. Especially when I catch myself doing it. The last time that happened I was so pissed at myself my head literally exploded.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm usually okay with flexible word meanings. Using "Hopefully" to mean "It is to be hoped" rather than "full of hope" doesn't bother me, but I always thought "literally" was kind of sacred.

I'm crushed. Literally.

---dr.M.

 

[Lou Nuttick]

Much to my disgust, the dictionaries have been doing that for quite a few years now. My theory is that by taking popular, incorrect word usages and legitimizing them by including their formerly incorrect definitions, they hope to boost sales, since older dictionaries become out of date much more rapidly.

 

[Guest]

dr.

I know that you were being serious but I just spit sprite all over my keyboard. I enjoyed your posting thanks, literally.

 

[snooper]

The OED is more circumspect, as one would expect.

In a literal manner, in the literal sense; so as to represent the very words of the original; so as to depict or describe the thing realistically; (emphasizing the use of a word or phrase) without metaphor, exaggeration, distortion, or allusion, colloquially with some exaggeration etc., emphatically.

 

[upfront]

The block-headed use of "literally" for lazy emphasis irritates me too, and your examples point up starkly the varying quality of different dictionaries.

Whether or not we're happy with a dictionary definition depends largely on whether we see the dictionary's role as prescriptive or descriptive. The problem is that prescibing a word's "correct" usage implies that such a thing is static and unarguable.

We could argue over "hopefully" (if we had nothing better to do), but to my mind the words that we should care most about are those which maintain a useful distinction from another word. For example, "disinterested" is very commonly used to mean "uninterested", although to people who care about language it means something different, and the distiction between the two words is a useful thing to preserve. (Having said that, the convention of using disinterested to mean "apathetic" stretches back much further than we might like to pretend.)

As far as "Literally" goes, it strikes me that the OED has it about right - the colloquial use is listed, but without the same level of importance.

 

[Angeline]

The block-headed use of "literally" for lazy emphasis irritates me too, and your examples point up starkly the varying quality of different dictionaries.

Whether or not we're happy with a dictionary definition depends largely on whether we see the dictionary's role as prescriptive or descriptive. The problem is that prescibing a word's "correct" usage implies that such a thing is static and unarguable.

We could argue over "hopefully" (if we had nothing better to do), but to my mind the words that we should care most about are those which maintain a useful distinction from another word. For example, "disinterested" is very commonly used to mean "uninterested", although to people who care about language it means something different, and the distiction between the two words is a useful thing to preserve. (Having said that, the convention of using disinterested to mean "apathetic" stretches back much further than we might like to pretend.)

As far as "Literally" goes, it strikes me that the OED has it about right - the colloquial use is listed, but without the same level of importance.

Show off.

 

[snooper]

Show off.

Why else does anyone post on a web bulletin board?

 

[Angeline]

Why else does anyone post on a web bulletin board?

I know. We're old friends--and both language obsessed. I was teasing him.

 

[upfront]

lol

hugs Ange sweetie

I thought at least twice about posting because I expected to be shouted down ... !!

I haven't been called a show-off since I was 14 ... lol.

 

[snooper]

... I haven't been called a show-off since I was 14 ...

At least four years then?

 

[upfront]

At least four years then?

Indeed, I am of legal age!

Ohh to be 18 again ...

*wistful sigh*

 

[HawaiiBill]

OED chides looseness

The OED is more circumspect, as one would expect.

In a literal manner, in the literal sense; so as to represent the very words of the original; so as to depict or describe the thing realistically; (emphasizing the use of a word or phrase) without metaphor, exaggeration, distortion, or allusion, colloquially with some exaggeration etc., emphatically.

OED also sez: "Used to indicate that the following word or phrase must be taken in its literal sense.
Now often improperly used to indicate that some conventional metaphorical or hyperbolical phrase is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense."

 

[snooper]

Re: OED chides looseness

OED also sez: "Used to indicate that the following word or phrase must be taken in its literal sense.
Now often improperly used to indicate that some conventional metaphorical or hyperbolical phrase is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense."

Odd. Mine doesn't. Out of curiousity, which edition are you using?

 

[HawaiiBill]

Up to date in river city

Snooper,

That's Oxford English Dictionary Online. Full version, updated quarterly.

 

[Madame Manga]

I don't like the misuse either, but it's a handy tool to discover whether a writer is thinking through the meaning of what he says.

What genuinely torks me off is criticism from semi-literates when I use a word or phrase in its correct sense instead of its colloquial sense, and this sounds 'wrong' to their tin ears. I admit that I sometimes feel like bashing the perpetrator over the head with a dictionary. Literally.

MM

 

[upfront]

I don't like the misuse either, but it's a handy tool to discover whether a writer is thinking through the meaning of what he says.

What genuinely torks me off is criticism from semi-literates when I use a word or phrase in its correct sense instead of its colloquial sense, and this sounds 'wrong' to their tin ears. I admit that I sometimes feel like bashing the perpetrator over the head with a dictionary. Literally.

MM

Ah, yes ... I avoid using the phrase "beg the question", even on the rare occasions when it's correct, for this very reason; and where possible most of us avoid splitting infinitives in written English, because even though that "rule" is a dubious extension from Latin (where infinitives aren't split because they can't be), we are aware that if we do split an infinitive we run the risk of appearing ignorant to a reader who's been erroneously taught that split infinitives are always wrong.

 

[snooper]

Re: Up to date in river city

Snooper,

That's Oxford English Dictionary Online. Full version, updated quarterly.

<Envy> I bow to that. I've only got the SOED but it is on my machine so I have direct access from Word, etc.

 

[Guest]

Who feckin' care whether i'm literally typing this shit over the inter-net for whatever reason plus who cares if i'm a cute goddamn momkey trying to right shakespeare's life-time work but then i'm quite hopeful that oneday i'll edit oed.

 

[HawaiiBill]

Editors care

Who feckin' care whether i'm literally typing this shit over the inter-net for whatever reason plus who cares if i'm a cute goddamn momkey trying to right shakespeare's life-time work but then i'm quite hopeful that oneday i'll edit oed.

Please note this is the Editor's Forum. As volunteers we try to make submitted copy clearer, easier to read and within the bounds of proper language usage. Toward that goal, we discuss how best to go about using the blue pencil -- or cursor.

If that does not interest you it would be a good idea to avoid this or other threads clearly dedicated to such subjects.

Simple enough for you?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I've got some other suggestions. How about we expand this "literally" thing so that "quickly" can mean either rapidly or slowly, and "easily" can mean either effortlessly or with a great deal of effort? "Accurately" can mean either with precision or without it, and "lately" can mean either recently or a long time ago.

These changes help make English so much more flexible. Or do I mean "rigid"?

---dr.M.

 

[HawaiiBill]

Rigid?

Or do I mean "rigid"? ---dr.M.

Time for a cold shower -- which fits in with your suggestion because the medical community has chimed in saying it does NOT cool the sex drive. Quite the opposite, they say. I'm having mine with ice cubes. Wifey will be along any minute . . .

 

[Edward Teach]

I'm usually okay with flexible word meanings. Using "Hopefully" to mean "It is to be hoped" rather than "full of hope" doesn't bother me, but I always thought "literally" was kind of sacred.

I'm crushed. Literally.

---dr.M.

I'm with you on "literally," dr. M.

Another word modern dictionaries give opposite definitions to is "scan." It used to mean "examine closely" but now can also mean the opposite.

Being a rather poor scholar, I find it irritating that when I finally learn a word its meaning changes.

Ed

 

[cantdog]

You ought to have been French. They have an aversion to changes occurring in their precious language, with out authorization, and they have an Academy to patrol it.

The best dictionaries are descriptive, however, not prescriptive. If, through mis-hearing a word, or through ignorance, or through any path, a word undergoes a change or takes on a new meaning, the thing to do, if you are a dictionary, is to take note of it, and record the neologism as accurately as possible, and date it.

"McJobs" is a new word, one which would never have appeared in the dictionary under a prescriptive regime, because when it did appear in the latest dictionary it generated a lawsuit by an irate corporation. It was defined in unwelcome terms, as a dead-end, low-end, low-paying job with little chance for advancement and little or no benefits.

The defense of the entry was that the dictionary exists to record the usage and vocabulary of current American speech.

Look up "nasty" and "nice" in your OED. You will find "nasty" simply meant "wet" at one time, while "nice" once meant very much what is now meant by "nasty"!

cantdog