4 ms·

That's not what M-W says. They've gone the whole hog, and said that one meaning of "literally" is "not literally".

School-Cotton 5y ago
Dictionaries are trailing a moving target and are not always perfectly accurate.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> That's not what M-W says. M-W is [EDIT: or would be, see below], in that case, simply in error. The OED gets the colloquial use right: “Used to indicate that some (frequently conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’.” It also traces it back to at least 1769, which should shut up those people treating it as some new corruption. https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/109061 https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/109061 EDIT: On actually reading the M-W link, the characterization upthread is false: it doesn't say it means “not literally” but that it is “used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible”. This seems to just be a poorer wording of the OED take, especially in light of the extended discussion of that usage that is presented below thr definition proper.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm good with that OED explanation. It's hard to get the nuance, but that's not bad. M-W is just incomprehensible - it's hard to understand how a lexicographer can make such a mess of defining a word. I mean, that's the core business.
  - School-Cotton 5y ago
    The editors of the OED are “hardcore descriptivists”, too. They’re just more complete and accurate than M-W, in this case.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  It also says "a story that is basically true even if not literally true". I don't think mine was a false characterisation, but see for yourself. I think M-W are descriptivist zealots, who will never accept that there is an incorrect usage. Therefore they contradict themselves in their own definition of this word. I don't think it's just a poorer wording; there's an ideological difference, one so important that it's defence requires this lexicographer, whose business is publishing definitions, to make a definition incomprehensible. This isn't the only example - M-W seems to be Google's preferred dictionary lookup for search terms (after some nasty spammy searches). I've seen a lot of M-W definitions that are contradictory, because of the ideology. </rant-mode>

Dictionaries are trailing a moving target and are not always perfectly accurate.

> That's not what M-W says. M-W is [EDIT: or would be, see below], in that case, simply in error. The OED gets the colloquial use right: “Used to indicate that some (frequently conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: ‘virtually, as good as’; (also) ‘completely, utterly, absolutely’.” It also traces it back to at least 1769, which should shut up those people treating it as some new corruption. https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/109061 https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/109061 EDIT: On actually reading the M-W link, the characterization upthread is false: it doesn't say it means “not literally” but that it is “used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible”. This seems to just be a poorer wording of the OED take, especially in light of the extended discussion of that usage that is presented below thr definition proper.

denton-scratch 5y ago
Yeah, I'm good with that OED explanation. It's hard to get the nuance, but that's not bad. M-W is just incomprehensible - it's hard to understand how a lexicographer can make such a mess of defining a word. I mean, that's the core business.
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  The editors of the OED are “hardcore descriptivists”, too. They’re just more complete and accurate than M-W, in this case.
denton-scratch 5y ago
It also says "a story that is basically true even if not literally true". I don't think mine was a false characterisation, but see for yourself. I think M-W are descriptivist zealots, who will never accept that there is an incorrect usage. Therefore they contradict themselves in their own definition of this word. I don't think it's just a poorer wording; there's an ideological difference, one so important that it's defence requires this lexicographer, whose business is publishing definitions, to make a definition incomprehensible. This isn't the only example - M-W seems to be Google's preferred dictionary lookup for search terms (after some nasty spammy searches). I've seen a lot of M-W definitions that are contradictory, because of the ideology. </rant-mode>