Dictionaries recognise exaggerated uses of the word 'literally' - Polidicks

don't see why people complain about this word. i mean nobody really complains about other words that are used "incorrectly"

[QUOTE=Alice3173;41969341][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/NGJMGTf.png[/IMG] Did they really just define literally by using the word literally?[/QUOTE] It looks like they defined the second definition by the first definition... which doesn't make any sense.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41970060]Did you just tell complainers to shut the fuck up [I]and[/I] say anyone using the secondary definition should be shot? :v:[/QUOTE] He also stated that there is a distinct difference from spoken and written english. Anyone who uses literally's non-literal definition in serious writing (except in conversation between characters) will still be ostracized in the college English curriculum.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41970229]don't see why people complain about this word. i mean nobody really complains about other words that are used "incorrectly"[/QUOTE] Because pedantry makes you look ~intelligent~ basically people complain because it's there and it can be complained about even though it literally hurts nobody and literally nobody cares

So that means if a lot of people keep making the same mistakes again and again it will eventually be officially correct? Call it the ~beauty of language~ all you want, it's still ridiculous.

Next up, redefining 'u' as a second person pronoun.

if you can't understand the exaggeration inherent in using "literally" instead of "figuratively" you have the mental processing power of a 2 year old

This basically fucks the word's own definition and kind of makes it a paradox. Run, the stupid will be here soon. :v:

[QUOTE=Flazer210;41970492]This basically fucks the word's own definition and kind of makes it a paradox. Run, the stupid will be here soon. :v:[/QUOTE] i never hear people complain when someone says someone is "on fire" while doing well at something. that turn-of-phrase changes the definition of being on fire from "literally being on fire" to "not being on fire at all" yet no one gives a fuck about that? why is this such a big deal.

[QUOTE=proch;41970415]So that means if a lot of people keep making the same mistakes again and again it will eventually be officially correct? Call it the ~beauty of language~ all you want, it's still ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Language isn't a set of rules, it's just a way to communicate with other people. If everybody "makes mistakes" who gives a shit, you understand what they mean and that's the point.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;41970541]Language isn't a set of rules, it's just a way to communicate with other people. If everybody "makes mistakes" who gives a shit, you understand what they mean and that's the point.[/QUOTE] When people make linguistic mistakes I legitimately do not understand what they mean. That's my point. It takes longer to process because I have to use context to fill in the blanks.

[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;41969406]Aw man, I was planning on starting a band called "Literally Worse Than Hitler" but now the emphasis is going to be ruined...[/QUOTE] just name it "Literally, as in the Classical Sense of the Word, Worse Than Hitler" more of a mouth-full but it still wouldn't be the worst band name i've seen in that respect

[QUOTE=proch;41970415]So that means if a lot of people keep making the same mistakes again and again it will eventually be officially correct? Call it the ~beauty of language~ all you want, it's still ridiculous.[/QUOTE] At this rate, we can get defiantly and definitely to have the same definition in no time. ... literally no time.

[QUOTE=Kinversulath;41970741]At this rate, we can get defiantly and definitely to have the same definition in no time. ... literally no time.[/QUOTE] i will definitely use "literally" literally literally every time i defiantly can

[QUOTE=Yahnich;41969263]i'm pretty sure there's heaps of paradoxes because people like using things ironically i literally can't deal with language purists who insist on languages staying static and never evolving[/QUOTE] I don't mind languages evolving but words becoming more vague isn't really a good thing.

Do people who make dictionaries all have Symes as their childhood hero?

This is the reason English is a horrible language to learn. It relies on context way too damn much.

[QUOTE=lavacano;41969278]I don't mind the language evolving, I just get upset when it pulls shit like defining words as opposite of themselves. I might be biased though, since I seem to have a hatred for the English language in general.[/QUOTE] It's not redefining the word at all, it's making a note of how it's commonly misused for emphatic purposes. It'd be redefining it and creating a paradox if it defined it by 'figuratively' because that's the 'actual' word being replaced by a misuse of the word literally.

I doubt people even use it as an exaggeration. It's more likely just misused by people who don't know what it means and think it's just some generic intensifier.

Weird, I was thinking today about how peoples use of the word "literally" kinda annoys me at times

[QUOTE=Foxtrot200;41970636]When people make linguistic mistakes I legitimately do not understand what they mean. That's my point. It takes longer to process because I have to use context to fill in the blanks.[/QUOTE] What he means is that if the majority of speakers use a word to imply a certain idea or concept, and the majority is aware of it, then what follows is that it gets officially integrated in the language. It's not the same as someone saying something was "ironic" when the event they're describing isn't ironic at all in the sense that people normally give to this word, they're just misusing the term entirely, but when someone says "literally" to mark emphasis even though it is not literally "literally", people understand what they mean because most people use the word in this fashion as well.

Literally everyone uses literally wrong.

[QUOTE=barttool;41972446]What he means is that if the majority of speakers use a word to imply a certain idea or concept, and the majority is aware of it, then what follows is that it gets officially integrated in the language. It's not the same as someone saying something was "ironic" when the event they're describing isn't ironic at all in the sense that people normally give to this word, they're just misusing the term entirely, but when someone says "literally" to mark emphasis even though it is not literally "literally", people understand what they mean because most people use the word in this fashion as well.[/QUOTE] Uh, it's worse than when people misuse ironic. Not being exactly ironic is better than exaggerating with a word that implicitly means you aren't exaggerating.

The only problem I have with people misusing literally is the same as when people use "like" every two words. It's annoying because of the overuse, not because of the misuse.

[QUOTE=supersnail11;41973380]The only problem I have with people misusing literally is the same as when people use "like" every two words. It's annoying because of the overuse, not because of the misuse.[/QUOTE] that is like literally so annoying

It's all falling apart. This is just the start. Tune in next week when exclamation points will rate how important something is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

i see people using 'actually' in place of of literally now too

I literally can't think of another literally joke

[QUOTE=lavacano;41969278]I don't mind the language evolving, I just get upset when it pulls shit like defining words as opposite of themselves. I might be biased though, since I seem to have a hatred for the English language in general.[/QUOTE] literally Hitler

I do this a lot. And so do the Top Gear hosts, actually.