3 ms·

Languages change over time. "Goodbye" originated from "God be with you", but I don't see anyone complaining about it.

mjgoins 13y ago
But when "literally" means "figuratively", how do you express the concept that "literally" used to mean? You have to go out of your way to circumlocute, which is at least annoying, if nothing else.
- lutusp 13y ago
  The alternative is for some "authority" to tell people what words mean, rather than ask them. This is not what dictionaries are for.
  - _dps 13y ago
    I share your dislike for a central language authority, but I think there are non-authoritative solutions that are consistent with the missions and practices of dictionaries. One possibility: dictionaries could report that a large fraction of English experts or teachers consider a particular usage incorrect. This would be a dispassionate reporting of people's behavior as well. You may ask "How do you pick the experts?" Well, how did we pick the people whose diction the dictionary supposedly represents? :) We make do with approximations. I think that the OED could easily afford to sample 1000 English teachers ranging from professors to grade school, and ranging across many geographical regions and social strata. It would actually be fascinating data to see alongside a definition! Edit: I had meant to add that the sampling for the words need not happen for every (word, expert) combination; giving each instructor 1000 words chosen uniformly from a pool of 10,000 words should get you reasonable coverage for almost all of those 10,000 words. So the costs of this sampling experiment on both OED and the expert volunteers would be quite low.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > I share your dislike for a central language authority, but I think there are non-authoritative solutions that are consistent with the missions and practices of dictionaries. There are well-tested solutions. One is to have a language authority such as you suggest above, like the Académie française, which struggles against what it regards as erosions and distortions of proper French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise Another is simply to list definitions in the order of their contemporary preference, as dictionary.com does. Interestingly, Merriam-Webster uses the reverse order, listing the oldest definitions first, as in the case of "Decimated", which once meant reduced by one tenth but now means substantially destroyed: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimated http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimated Note the difference in listing order. > One possibility: dictionaries could report that a large fraction of English experts or teachers consider a particular usage incorrect. Apart from the problem of choosing experts, I think this would only slow the natural rate of language evolution. I think the problem is deeper -- it asks whether language is (or should be) susceptible to evolution by means of natural selection as people's tastes and needs change.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- leephillips 13y ago
  Just say "figuratively"; they will have swapped definitions.
- 100k 13y ago
  Figurative use of literally is somewhat annoying to me, but it's not the only English word with two opposite meanings. "Cleave" means both split apart and stick together. Edit: Maybe I should re-think my annoyance. Merriam Webster documents usage going back centuries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_VHZq_7eU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_VHZq_7eU
leephillips 13y ago
It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake without someone helpfully pointing out that language changes (over time, even). We know that. We might know that, be well-behaved descriptivists, and yet still think that this definition is wrong. Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement. That doesn't mean that it won't be justified in another 40 years or so.
- norswap 13y ago
  If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake, you're literally wrong.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake ... It's not a mistake -- people are free to use words any way they want. Also, the "literally" entry over a Merriam-Webster shows Norman Cousins using the word this way: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally 2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins> Language isn't a science, it's an art. This is an example of artistic freedom.
    - leephillips 13y ago
      I hear you. I never really understood the meaning of "ironic" until the work of Alanis Morissette.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake ... But the dictionary didn't make a mistake. The word "literally" means what most people think, as well as its opposite. A dictionary's purpose is solely to report how people use words (it describes, it doesn't prescribe), and it got this use right. > It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement. That depends. Is this new definition out in the wild? Apparently so, in which case the listing is valid. Over at Webster's in the days of print, if a word was used with a particular meaning in ten recognized publications, it became official.

But when "literally" means "figuratively", how do you express the concept that "literally" used to mean? You have to go out of your way to circumlocute, which is at least annoying, if nothing else.

lutusp 13y ago
The alternative is for some "authority" to tell people what words mean, rather than ask them. This is not what dictionaries are for.
- _dps 13y ago
  I share your dislike for a central language authority, but I think there are non-authoritative solutions that are consistent with the missions and practices of dictionaries. One possibility: dictionaries could report that a large fraction of English experts or teachers consider a particular usage incorrect. This would be a dispassionate reporting of people's behavior as well. You may ask "How do you pick the experts?" Well, how did we pick the people whose diction the dictionary supposedly represents? :) We make do with approximations. I think that the OED could easily afford to sample 1000 English teachers ranging from professors to grade school, and ranging across many geographical regions and social strata. It would actually be fascinating data to see alongside a definition! Edit: I had meant to add that the sampling for the words need not happen for every (word, expert) combination; giving each instructor 1000 words chosen uniformly from a pool of 10,000 words should get you reasonable coverage for almost all of those 10,000 words. So the costs of this sampling experiment on both OED and the expert volunteers would be quite low.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > I share your dislike for a central language authority, but I think there are non-authoritative solutions that are consistent with the missions and practices of dictionaries. There are well-tested solutions. One is to have a language authority such as you suggest above, like the Académie française, which struggles against what it regards as erosions and distortions of proper French: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise Another is simply to list definitions in the order of their contemporary preference, as dictionary.com does. Interestingly, Merriam-Webster uses the reverse order, listing the oldest definitions first, as in the case of "Decimated", which once meant reduced by one tenth but now means substantially destroyed: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimated http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimated Note the difference in listing order. > One possibility: dictionaries could report that a large fraction of English experts or teachers consider a particular usage incorrect. Apart from the problem of choosing experts, I think this would only slow the natural rate of language evolution. I think the problem is deeper -- it asks whether language is (or should be) susceptible to evolution by means of natural selection as people's tastes and needs change.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
leephillips 13y ago
Just say "figuratively"; they will have swapped definitions.
100k 13y ago
Figurative use of literally is somewhat annoying to me, but it's not the only English word with two opposite meanings. "Cleave" means both split apart and stick together. Edit: Maybe I should re-think my annoyance. Merriam Webster documents usage going back centuries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_VHZq_7eU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai_VHZq_7eU

leephillips 13y ago

It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake without someone helpfully pointing out that language changes (over time, even). We know that. We might know that, be well-behaved descriptivists, and yet still think that this definition is wrong. Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement. That doesn't mean that it won't be justified in another 40 years or so.

norswap 13y ago
If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake, you're literally wrong.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake ... It's not a mistake -- people are free to use words any way they want. Also, the "literally" entry over a Merriam-Webster shows Norman Cousins using the word this way: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally 2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins> Language isn't a science, it's an art. This is an example of artistic freedom.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    I hear you. I never really understood the meaning of "ironic" until the work of Alanis Morissette.
lutusp 13y ago
> It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake ... But the dictionary didn't make a mistake. The word "literally" means what most people think, as well as its opposite. A dictionary's purpose is solely to report how people use words (it describes, it doesn't prescribe), and it got this use right. > It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement. That depends. Is this new definition out in the wild? Apparently so, in which case the listing is valid. Over at Webster's in the days of print, if a word was used with a particular meaning in ten recognized publications, it became official.