I am literally crying over this

[Isaac]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally?q=Literally

Oh no...so because people dont understand the meaning of literal or literally, Oxford dictionary recognizes the change in social grammar.

Tis a sad day indeed.

Im still going to be an old grump and point out that people are literally not on fire, but figuratively. HARUMPH!!

 

[Legion]

I literally laughed my butt off at this. Which is going to make it hard to sit down.

 

[cb91710]

Well, at least they explain that it is not an acceptable use of the term.

I've heard it used improperly from when I was a kid, literally knee high to a grasshopper

 

[mretzloff]

99% of the time, the word "literally" is used incorrectly. If you "literally" do something, that means you are doing it.

 

[JellyFox]

99% of the time, the word "literally" is used incorrectly.

Then it's not incorrect.

 

[Kentos]

It is like how irregardless is accepted as a proper word nowadays.

 

[cb91710]

Then it's not incorrect.

Just because children and other semi-literate people substitute a "Z" for an "S" in a word when the "S" represents the "Z" sound does not make it not incorrect.

 

[JellyFox]

Just because children and other semi-literate people substitute a "Z" for an "S" in a word when the "S" represents the "Z" sound does not make it not incorrect.

That's a stylisation. This is a legitimate language change. Many words change meanings over time, or gain new ones - this is just one example (and this usage actually goes back further than you'd think - the OED even cites a source from 1906 with that exact usage). If 99% of people use a word in a particular way, it's a correct usage.

 

[oakeshott]

That's a stylisation. This is a legitimate language change. Many words change meanings over time, or gain new ones - this is just one example (and this usage actually goes back further than you'd think - the OED even cites a source from 1906 with that exact usage). If 99% of people use a word in a particular way, it's a correct usage.

JellyFox is right, though that doesn't mean the change is good or that we shouldn't fight it. One of my youngish co-workers no longer uses "literally" in this hateful fashion because I've subjected him to ridicule, scorn and derision. Score one for us. I understand that this makes me an unlovely, irritating and crotchety PITA, but when my body is either ashes or mouldering in the dirt (probably in an unknown location and sprinkled liberally with lime), the English Language will perhaps mist up a bit at the passing of one of her champions and guardians. A poor one, admittedly, but earnest.

 

[Artimid]

It could be worse in that the dictionary could now include =/= to mean "not equal to" instead, or =!. I fully accept the evolution of language, and the idea that if enough people use it then it must be considered correct. There is a point to that though, it cannot just be ignorant people on the internet who live by hyperbole as their motto. In this case, Jelly shows where this was something used for a very long time, so I can accept that and will consider it in the future. I am fully with oakeshott though, in that I expect adults to use correct English. Typing is one thing, but speaking is another.

When the dictionary added <3 I wept inside, and lost a bit of faith in the dictionary at the same time.

 

[Mark1966]

That's a stylisation. This is a legitimate language change. Many words change meanings over time, or gain new ones - this is just one example (and this usage actually goes back further than you'd think - the OED even cites a source from 1906 with that exact usage). If 99% of people use a word in a particular way, it's a correct usage.

You are probably correct - but I will go to my grave arguing against this!

 

[craig87c]

It is like how irregardless is accepted as a proper word nowadays.

It's just too fun to say! Really rolls off the tongue.

And people getting flustered over the use of literally is one of my pet peeves. When it's used incorrectly, it's almost always used hyperbolically. Just an expression to convey a more extreme reaction than what really occurred.

Mostly anyway. Some people use it but don't know what it even means, of course.

 

[daccpa]

It is one of my pet peeves also, it literally drives me crazy.

 

[rushchairman]

If 99% of people use a word in a particular way, it's a correct usage.

Not exactly. At the very best, our hybrid language is valid, but it's certainly not correct. It's actually incorrect in the sense that we continue to refer to it as "English". The English language exists and will exist for all eternity. Its rules have long been established. While we speak a version of it, we certainly do not speak it. For the record, I don't kid myself into believing I speak anything other than a total bastardization of the Queen's English.

 

[mretzloff]

If 99% of people use a word in a particular way, it's a correct usage.

No, no it is not. Just because the majority of people fail to properly use a word correctly does not change the fact that what they are doing is incorrect. Most people says "I am doing good", "There's five people over there", etc., but that does not mean that all of a sudden those word usages are correct.

There is a difference between words changing meaning and words being used incorrectly out of ignorance.

 

[Argonaut]

"As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species."

 

[Mick]

I literally agree with you on this one. Literally dude.... Well figuratively speaking that is

 

[redrako]

Kudos to Oakeshott for having a discussion with a young person about what words actually mean. You've now sewn the idea that words have both power and nuance. Occasionally I have been know to advise individuals about how their lazy verbal ticks actually detract from the idea that they are presenting.

Even though I am comfortably in the "Get off my lawn!!!" phase of life, I realize that language does evolve over time. It's my opinion that the forces that shape language have been pushing linguistic change at an accelerated pace over the past couple of generations. I'll offer two examples:

Television newscasters (or presenters as our English friends more accurately call them), at one time spoke in a moderately educated, standard American English Increasingly the focus has shifted to the news men and women using more colloquial language to appear more friendly instead of the Walter Cronkite "voice of God" approach to broadcasting.

Secondly I fault professional business people who have shifted from standard American English to a more action oriented langue to emphasize how dynamic they are. The worst example of this is the steady litany of cliches such as "hit the ground running", or "Pull the trigger". If they were to wonder what the effect of this is, for me it leaves me wondering if they can speak at all without using such hackneyed cliches?

Yet I know historically that language usage changes with time and that it's up to each generation to arrive at works best for the future that they're building. I can now listen to someone use the word "impact" as a verb without wincing as I wonder if they area simply confused about the differences between "affect" and "effect".

Of course if they were regular readers of B&B they would know that loading enough soap on your brush affects the quality of your shave, leaving your with that wonderful BBS effect.

 

[JellyFox]

JellyFox is right, though that doesn't mean the change is good or that we shouldn't fight it.

Well of course you're entitled to find the usage ugly. But it's becoming more and more common, so you'd best be able to figure out how it's being used when you hear it.

There is a difference between words changing meaning and words being used incorrectly out of ignorance.

The only difference is scale. If a few people use an existing word in a new way, they're incorrect (if they don't realise it's a new meaning), or they're failing to a coin a term (if they know the difference). If many people do, then it's become part of the language (or part of a dialect, if the change is localised to a particular region). Whether it started as an error or a deliberate attempt to change its meaning is immaterial - once it's taken hold, it's not wrong to use it that way.

No, no it is not. Just because the majority of people fail to properly use a word correctly does not change the fact that what they are doing is incorrect. Most people says "I am doing good", "There's five people over there", etc., but that does not mean that all of a sudden those word usages are correct.

It does mean that. That's the way it's always worked. You'd be amazed how many of the words you use every day arrived at their modern meaning in exactly that way. I'm going to appeal to authority on this. From Trask's Historical Linguistics:

Another case is the verb transpire. This used to mean 'come to light', 'become known'. Thus, a sentence like 'It transpired that the councillors had been fiddling their expenses' meant 'It came to light that...'. But such sentences were easily misunderstood, and many people, on encountering them, took them to mean rather 'It happened that...'. Consequently, transpire is now commonly used to mean 'happen, occur', and now we often hear things like 'We don't know what transpired', meaning 'We don't know what happened', which would have been impossible not so long ago. The word transpire has changed its meaning.

This last example illustrates one way in which the meaning of a word can change: it is commonly used in a context in which a different interpretation of the whole sentence is possible and reasonable. Something similar happened with cheer. This formerly meant 'state of mind', but its frequent occurrence in sentences like 'Be of good cheer' induced hearers to assume that the world meant specifically a good state of mind, and that is the only sense the word now has.

 

[oc_in_fw]

Just because children and other semi-literate people substitute a "Z" for an "S" in a word when the "S" represents the "Z" sound does not make it not incorrect.

Which English are we talking about? The Queen's English has a lot of words that use "z" where we use "s"