Seriously, dictionary? SERIOUSLY?

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

According to an article here, dictionaries are now listing “literally” as meaning the same thing as “figuratively” because of its common usage.

So let me understand this: There’s no point in trying to settle wagers anymore over what words mean by consulting the dictionary, because the dictionary is going to list meanings even if they’re wrong.

I’m sorry, I thought that dictionaries were supposed to be bastions of correct word usage, not simply recordings of things that people are too ignorant to use correctly.

PAD

46 comments on “Seriously, dictionary? SERIOUSLY?”

  1. Actually, dictionaries are a simple reporting of the state of the language; note where it states “informal” or “colloquial” or some such. But if the usage is so widespread that a plurality of the language/dialect’s speakers are using it in a particular way and doing so non-sarcastically, even that informal/colloquial tag goes away. Think about “terrible” and “awful.” Those two have *drastically* shifted meaning over time.

    …that being said, I will neither use “literally” in that sense nor allow it in non-dialogue/non-character-narration in the books I copyedit.

  2. I’ve not sone any type of study on the issue and only gotten this from just living a life that includes listening to human interest stuff on the news occasionally, but…

    It was my understanding that the English Language (like all non-dead languages) changes. The meaning of words changes over time. I had heard that if a word starts being used by a large enough portion of the speakers of the language to mean a certain thing, then it does mean that, and the people who maintain dictionaries will eventually include that usage in the dictionary.

    1. Yeah, that is true and shows that dictionaries were actually never good tools for settling debates over word usage. If enough people use a word wrong, it becomes the right way to use the word.

      But here we have a case where a word, literally, becomes the opposite of itself. That’s probably happened in the past, like how terrific means a good thing now instead of a bad thing (it comes from the word terror). But what other word to we have that means the same thing as literally? The language is now worse for this change. It’s not an evolution of the language, it’s a devolution.

      1. I agree that the definition of “literally” expanding to where it could also mean “figuratively” is annoying. I also cannot think of a word that unambiguously serves the role of “literally’s” most common definition. However, I think that dictionaries expanding the definition is a sign that the battle’s already been lost.

      3. David, would “actually” fit the bill?

        People might say “I literally shat bricks when I read that article” but I doubt anyone says “I actually shat bricks when I read that article”.

        Now to go build a house to keep the Big Bad Wolf away…

  4. Unless it’s a dictionary of slang which lays out all the ways the language gets misused. Somewhere along the way publishers seem to have gotten the two mixed up.

  7. Dictionaries are not, and should not be, “bastions of correct word usage.” Words mean what they mean because of usage and dictionaries record that usage.

    1. That is to say, how speakers use words determines what is correct, not what is printed in a book. Dictionaries record the meaning assigned by usage, they don’t generate it.

      1. Then why bother having English classes in grade and high school? Just let them speak/write as they wish and who cares about the rules? Otherwise, how are people supposed to look up the proper usage of words to make sure they get it right unless in a dictionary?

  8. It’s futile to expect dictionaries to remain static when language itself is ever-evolving. It still annoys me when I hear “nauseous” and “snuck” but they’re actual words now even though I may not want them to be. I need to, you know, get over it.

      1. Yes, nauseous has long been a meaningful word. The concern is that some dictionaries now consider it acceptable for it to be used to mean both “nauseating” and “nauseated,” which tortures the notion of meaningful. (For that reason, many people simply avoid the word entirely.)

      2. According to my dictionary, it’s always meant both of those things. The idea that one of them is a new definition is apparently erroneous (frankly, I’ve never heard such objections).

      4. Oh, no, I wasn’t implying that my dictionary is as old as the word “nauseous.” I meant that it includes a note specifically addressing this controversy, and asserting that the two definitions came about at the same time.

  9. Oh, stop being such a language nazi.

    Also, look up nazi in the dictionary. Its also had its definition drift.

  11. While languages like French and Portuguese do have official committees to define what is correct and what isn’t, English has always been molded by its users instead. This is like the difference between Roman Law (only what is written matters) and Common Law (precedent matters).

    I do agree that having a word (like “hacker”) be redefined to be the same thing as some other word (“cracker”, in this case) leaving us without any word for the original idea impoverishes the language.

  12. As Bill the Cat would say, “ack!” to that news. I do understand that languages change over time, but this one’s just dopey.

    Of course, this also reminds me of the immortal James Nicoll line:

    The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whørë. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary.

  13. The trouble is that once you accept that, you accept everything. Soon, the dictionary will tell you that infer and imply are the same thing, that ironic means funny, or (a pet peeve of mine), that “have” and “of” are interchangeable (who ever thought that they were, BTW ? I can’t figure that out).

    I haven’t seen that kind of things in my Larousse, but the way the french language is tortured on the net, I wonder how long it will be until “sein” receive the same definition as “saint” because they sound alike in french.

    1. Regarding the “have” and “of” thing, I don’t think too many people would say they were the same, unless they’re spelling the contracted form, as in, say, could’ve. It SOUNDs like could of, so for some people that’s enough.
      Irritates me to no end, of course, but then…

      1. Well, to paraphrase Henry Higgins, people like that “should be taken out and hung for the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue”, along with those who mistake “your” and “you’re” and “its” and “it’s”.

      2. Usually I agree wholeheartedly. On the other hand, on the way home from work this morning, I was listening briefly to a talk radio station. A nurse was complaining about these very things, impugning the intelligence of the doctors in the hospital for sometimes using improper grammar and/or spelling. As much of stickler as I can be over things like that, I think exceptions can and should be made in some cases. I’d rather have a doctor who knew how to remove a dangling piece of steel from my chest without stressing overmuch over a dangling participle.

  14. I’ve been saying this for a while now, especially in arguments: People who say literally when they mean figuratively are literally not worth my time.

  15. Gerard: The have/of confusion comes from verbal contractions such as could’ve for could have or should’ve for should have which careless speakers of English come to hear, say, and write as could of or should of.

  18. Language does in fact “evolve” but I think the issue is that it’s “devolving.” Will “U” become an accepted variant for “you”? “Loose” for “lose”?

    My issue with using “literally” interchangeably with “figuratively” is that we lose the former word in its previous definition. “She literally jumped out of seat with fright” can now mean “She was really frightened.”

  19. Personally, if you’ve ever used “exception that proves the rule” wrongly (i.e. with the word “prove” meaning “reinforces” rather than “tests”), you have no right to complain about any linguistic errors anybody else may commit ever.

      1. @Robert Fuller: No, in the phrase “the exception proves the rule”, it doesn’t – or more precisely, it didn’t. “Prove” here shows its common roots with the German verb “prüfen” (to check or test); its meaning has shifted in English over time, but (as so often happens) idioms are way slower to change.

      2. That’s a common myth. The phrase comes from British law, and it means the exception establishes the rule. Like, if I said, “The phrase ‘the exception that proves the rule’ is not stupid if used correctly,” that’s an exception that proves a rule, because it’s implicitly establishing the “rule” that the phrase is stupid if used incorrectly.

  21. THANK YOU, Peter, that pìššëd me off to no end too.

    I’ve long been irritated at idiots using the word “literally” as some generic “really”, and now Merriam-Webster is enabling them.

    Fûçk Merriam-Webster. I’m no longer citing them, and I’m throwing out the one I have.

  22. This is the Merriam-Webster dictionary – the same dictionary that said Bush was correct in pronouncing “nuclear” as “nook-yuh-ler”.

    Merriam-Webster is vastly inferior to the Oxford English Dictionary.

      1. I loved that one time in Doctor Who when The Master literally decimated the population of Earth. “Remove one tenth of the population!”

  24. To tell the absolute, brutal truth, as annoying as it is, usage does determine meaning, regardless of the origin of the word. Language is a living entity; we cannot impose rules on it, we can only observe how it behaves. If enough people misuse a word long enough in a consistent manner, their mis-usage will become that words new meaning.

  25. Haven’t you read Poul Anderson’s “A tragedy of errors”?

    It starts with the King of England calling the cathedral of St. Paul “awful, pompous and artificial”

    SPOILER

    At the end of the story he tells us that at the time those words meant “awe-inspiring, stately and ingeniously conceived”

Comments are closed.