5 ms·

Counterpoint, from http://theweek.com/article/index/241002/how-the-wrong-definition-of-literally-snuck-into-the-dictionary http://theweek.com/article/index/2410

by D_Alex 13y ago

Counterpoint, from http://theweek.com/article/index/241002/how-the-wrong-definition-of-literally-snuck-into-the-dictionary http://theweek.com/article/index/241002/how-the-wrong-defini... >Much to the chagrin of grammar-lovers everywhere, it turns out that this informal (and completely incorrect) use of "literally" has actually been added to three established dictionaries, as Reddit user andtheniansaid pointed out. ..."completely incorrect"...!

kivikakk 13y ago
"completely incorrect" is useless prescriptivism. They can call it incorrect all they like, it won't stop anyone.
- lutusp 13y ago
  But more, it misunderstands a dictionary's purpose, which is to dispassionately list how people choose to use words.
  - D_Alex 13y ago
    Not according to dictionary.com - that says that the purpose of the dictionary is to provide information on meaning and correct usage of the word. Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive. But even the descriptive type should provide information on how the word is used, eg: "sometimes incorrectly used to mean 'figuratively'".
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Not according to dictionary.com - that says that the purpose of the dictionary is to provide information on meaning and correct usage of the word. Wait, think a minute. That description exactly corresponds with what I said. The "correct" usage of a word is precisely, exactly what the speaker thinks it means, at that moment in time. If a dictionary listed a definition that was not in use by anyone, that would be different -- that would be incorrect. > Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive. Yes, and there are no prescriptive dictionaries, at least not in English. The French have one, created by the Académie française: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise Apart from the French example, it seems telling people how to use words has fallen out of fashion, giving way to another example of evolution by natural selection.
- D_Alex 13y ago
  It may be ineffective prescriptivism. The usefulness is in the fact that we should have a word that unambiguously means "in a strict sense, without exaggeration". What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite, and there is no way to tell from the context, eg: "When the tiger went "Rawr! Rawrrr!", I literally fouled my breeches!"
  - mtowle 13y ago
    >the fact that we should Can't have a factual should. Shoulds are normative. >What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite Is the word really useless or indeed useful if no one can provide a 'real' example of actual ambiguity between the two meanings? Furthermore, it's not as if ambiguity between one meaning and an opposite meaning is the greatest ambiguity there is-- if anything, it makes it particularly obvious which meaning the speaker intends.
    - Chris2048 13y ago
      Surely you can if a source of reference is used? i.e "fact we should" = "fact that most of society believes we should"?
lutusp 13y ago
> ..."completely incorrect"...! So the person quoted doesn't actually know what a dictionary's purpose is. It seems there are still people who think a dictionary should prescribe, not describe. This is by no means the only case where a word's meaning has changed over time, or even reversed its meaning. "Decimated", which now means destroyed or substantially destroyed depending on one's source, once meant reduced by a proportion of one tenth. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate Notice the difference in the listings between Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com. It's an old tradition with Merriam-Webster (and its predecessor Webster's Dictionary) to list the oldest definitions first. It seems newer dictionaries have reversed this practice. Speaking of reversals. :)

by D_Alex 13y ago

kivikakk 13y ago

"completely incorrect" is useless prescriptivism. They can call it incorrect all they like, it won't stop anyone.

lutusp 13y ago
But more, it misunderstands a dictionary's purpose, which is to dispassionately list how people choose to use words.
- D_Alex 13y ago
  Not according to dictionary.com - that says that the purpose of the dictionary is to provide information on meaning and correct usage of the word. Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive. But even the descriptive type should provide information on how the word is used, eg: "sometimes incorrectly used to mean 'figuratively'".
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Not according to dictionary.com - that says that the purpose of the dictionary is to provide information on meaning and correct usage of the word. Wait, think a minute. That description exactly corresponds with what I said. The "correct" usage of a word is precisely, exactly what the speaker thinks it means, at that moment in time. If a dictionary listed a definition that was not in use by anyone, that would be different -- that would be incorrect. > Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive. Yes, and there are no prescriptive dictionaries, at least not in English. The French have one, created by the Académie française: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise Apart from the French example, it seems telling people how to use words has fallen out of fashion, giving way to another example of evolution by natural selection.
D_Alex 13y ago
It may be ineffective prescriptivism. The usefulness is in the fact that we should have a word that unambiguously means "in a strict sense, without exaggeration". What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite, and there is no way to tell from the context, eg: "When the tiger went "Rawr! Rawrrr!", I literally fouled my breeches!"
- mtowle 13y ago
  >the fact that we should Can't have a factual should. Shoulds are normative. >What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite Is the word really useless or indeed useful if no one can provide a 'real' example of actual ambiguity between the two meanings? Furthermore, it's not as if ambiguity between one meaning and an opposite meaning is the greatest ambiguity there is-- if anything, it makes it particularly obvious which meaning the speaker intends.
  - Chris2048 13y ago
    Surely you can if a source of reference is used? i.e "fact we should" = "fact that most of society believes we should"?

lutusp 13y ago

> ..."completely incorrect"...! So the person quoted doesn't actually know what a dictionary's purpose is. It seems there are still people who think a dictionary should prescribe, not describe. This is by no means the only case where a word's meaning has changed over time, or even reversed its meaning. "Decimated", which now means destroyed or substantially destroyed depending on one's source, once meant reduced by a proportion of one tenth. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate Notice the difference in the listings between Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com. It's an old tradition with Merriam-Webster (and its predecessor Webster's Dictionary) to list the oldest definitions first. It seems newer dictionaries have reversed this practice. Speaking of reversals. :)