Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Dictionary says Literally can mean Figuratively  (Read 579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 31174
  • Reputation: +27088/-494
  • Gender: Male
Dictionary says Literally can mean Figuratively
« on: December 12, 2015, 12:00:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Talk about the modern world being insane!

    According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “figuratively”
    Thanks in part to the overuse of "literally," Merriam-Webster says the word can now mean its exact opposite. Huh?

    Much has been made of the use, misuse and overuse of the word “literally.”

    Literally, of course, means something that is actually true: “Literally every pair of shoes I own was ruined when my apartment flooded.”

    When we use words not in their normal literal meaning but in a way that makes a description more impressive or interesting, the correct word, of course, is “figuratively.”

    But people increasingly use “literally” to give extreme emphasis to a statement that cannot be true, as in: “My head literally exploded when I read Merriam-Webster, among others, is now sanctioning the use of literally to mean just the opposite.”
    Literally v. Figuratively image Literally vs Figuratively 300x300

    Indeed, Ragan’s PR Daily reported last week that Webster, Macmillan Dictionary and Google have added this latter informal use of “literally” as part of the word’s official definition. The Cambridge Dictionary has also jumped on board.

    How did this come to be? Mainstream use of “literally” to provide emphasis to a statement was aided in recent years, perhaps, with the help of a couple of popular sitcoms. Parks and Recreation’s Chris Traeger (Rob Lowe) extends his liberties with the word even further with his pronunciation (LIT-rally) and the frequent misuses of the word in “How I Met Your Mother” even helped inspire a drinking game. But I digress…

    Webster’s first definition of literally is, “in a literal sense or matter; actually.” Its second definition is, “in effect; virtually.” In addressing this seeming contradiction, its authors comment:

    “Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposition 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.”

    So it’s okay to use literally to mean figuratively as long as you really, really, really need to do so? Hmph.

    But this is the world as we find it today. So what are your thoughts on all this? Are you figuratively dying of angst over the decline of the English language, are you literally thrilled to pieces, or are you somewhere in between? Let us know!

    http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com


    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5767
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Dictionary says Literally can mean Figuratively
    « Reply #1 on: December 12, 2015, 12:30:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Conciliar sect beat Merriam-Webster at this game decades ago when they claimed that "many" means "all".


    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 9526
    • Reputation: +6244/-940
    • Gender: Male
    Dictionary says Literally can mean Figuratively
    « Reply #2 on: December 12, 2015, 02:43:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neurolinguistics is an effective tool for destroying minds and cultures.

    Offline clare

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2270
    • Reputation: +889/-38
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    Dictionary says Literally can mean Figuratively
    « Reply #3 on: December 12, 2015, 03:07:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In Defence of the Figurative Use of Literally

    Quote
    ... By 1839, when Charles Dickens (pictured) wrote Nicholas Nickleby, the figurative sense (the sense that the reading public is up in arms about today) was embedded in the language: “his looks were very haggard, and his limbs and body literally worn to the bone..."
    ...




    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Dictionary says Literally can mean Figuratively
    « Reply #4 on: December 13, 2015, 01:10:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    It seems to me that Mirriam-Webster along with other such dictionary producers are in the business of selling dictionaries.  Now, so long as people are impressed with shock value and are attracted to fads like bugs to a bug light, there will be a demand for new editions of dictionaries that pay homage to shock value words.  They only have to be cautious not to run in too quickly as language dissolves all around us.

    If such companies tried to uphold the principle of maintaining truth and consistency in a living language, they would eventually find their product to be falling in sales, and some competitor would spring up to give the buying public what it wants.  Therefore, out of a sense of self-preservation, dictionary publishers find themselves in the quandary of moving into a new realm of popular use as it arises or else be left behind as the times change.  I would expect that if there are any traditional Catholics on their boards of directors, they would be miserable people.  

    In these days of electronic books, the latest editions of dictionaries would have to be in electronic form or else they'd lose a considerable market share.  I would expect that most readers would find new definitions in the "free online dictionary" with credit given to Mirriam-Webster and the like, before they will ever find the entry in a physical paper bound book.

    Anecdotally, a friend recently told me that when he lived in Paris, France for a few months he noticed that people there commonly carry around BOOKS and they sometimes sit on a park bench or at a public square or a cafe in public view and the READ from their BOOKS, where they can be seen doing so.  He said that he has not noticed this curious behavior in other countries, including the USA, where people often wear ear buds listening to music, or are texting messages on their cell phone.  But it is quite rare to see someone reading a book in public view.  He said he thinks that was not always the case, and that in past years perhaps reading books in public was more commonplace, but in any case, it is STILL commonplace in Paris.  

    I was reminded of Belle in Disney's "Beauty and the Beast," who often read books in public, and she was in France.

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 908
    • Reputation: +372/-173
    • Gender: Male
    Dictionary says Literally can mean Figuratively
    « Reply #5 on: December 13, 2015, 04:30:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew (Dec 12, 2015, 1:00 pm)
    Talk about the modern world being insane!

    Quote from: Dana Coleman in Salon (Thursday, Aug 22, 2013 7:51 PM)(MB 'quote' syntax inserted)
    According to the dictionary, “literally” now also means “figuratively”
    Thanks in part to the  overuse misuse of "literally," Merriam-Webster says the word can now mean its exact opposite. [....]  Literally, of course, means something that is actually true [....]  When we use words not in their normal literal meaning [...,] the correct word, of course, is “figuratively.”  But people increasingly use “literally” to give extreme emphasis to a statement that cannot be true, as in: “My head literally exploded when I read [that] Merriam-Webster, among others, is now sanctioning the use of literally to mean just the opposite.” [....] 

    I've long believed that the error results from people mistakenly assuming that “literally” is derived from “literary” as in “literary license”, instead of learning that it comes ultimately from the Latin singular “lit(t)era”, meaning a “letter”, in the sense of a symbol in an alphabet.

    Quote from: Matthew (Dec 12, 2015, 1:00 pm)
    Quote from: Dana Coleman in Salon (Thursday, Aug 22, 2013 7:51 PM)(MB 'quote' syntax inserted)
    Webster’s first definition of literally is, “in a literal sense or matter; actually.”  Its second definition is, “in effect; virtually.”  In addressing this seeming contradiction, its authors comment:

    Quote from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally (MB 'quote' syntax inserted)
    “[Usage Discussion of LITERALLY]
    Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposition 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.”

    Sigh.  There was nothing wrong with the definition published in the middle of the past century:

    Quote from: G.&C. Merriam's Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1949)
    lit'er·al  [OF., fr. LL. [...] fr. L. [....]  1. According to the “letter,” or the natural or usual construction and implication of a[sic]  writing or expression. [....]  4. Of senses of words, conveying the primary meaning; -- opposed to figurative, specific, etc. [....] -- lit'er·al·ly, adv.

    Elided definitions 2, 3, and 5 were consistent with, instead of contrary to, 1 (as quoted in full).

    Quote from: Matthew (Dec 12, 2015, 1:00 pm)
    Quote from: Dana Coleman in Salon (Thursday, Aug 22, 2013 7:51 PM)(MB 'quote' syntax inserted)
    So it’s okay to use "literally" to mean "figuratively" as long as you really, really, really  need want to do so? Hmph.[....]

    Alas, the battle was already lost nearly 2 decades ago, when the devoted followers of the former (& original) edition of Henry Watson Fowler's great work were betrayed by its replacement by the latter edition (& successors):
    · H.W. Fowler[/b]: A dictionary of modern English usage, 1965 2nd ed. (as "revised" by Sir Ernest Gowers). Oxford University Press: Oxford (U.K.).  ISBN 0-19-869115-7 h.b.; 0-19-281389-7 p.b.; OCLC 318483.
    · Robert William Burchfield: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, 1996 3rd ed. (Preface admits "Fowler’s name remains on the title-page [... but] his book has been largely rewritten", according to Wikipedia).. Oxford U. Press.  ISBN 0-19-869126-2; OCLC 36063311.

    The former (1965) & original edition was prescriptive, i.e.: addressing English as it should be written, so as to avoid ambiguity in conveying ideas to one's readers, which is (one of?) the laudable goal(s) of being pedantic.  The latter (1996) & successor editions are descriptive, i.e.: addressing English as it's commonly spoken or written, including by people who are clueless about the actual meaning or correct spelling of words, which risks--if not jolly well guarantees--ambiguity in conveying ideas to one's listeners or readers.

    My quick diagnostic for the worth of any dictionary is whether it defines "decimate" literally, as applying to 10% of the countable objects being discussed, and figuratively, as applying to a minority that's significantly smaller than 50%, and plainly marks as "ignorant" its common usage as a synonym for "devastate", "extirpate", or "nearly wipe out", regardless of how many ignorant readers readers might whinily complain that they're being "disrespected".

    -------
    Note *: Anon.: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally>