OnlineBookClub.org

I'll be the first to admit that I take grammar a little more seriously than necessary, but one of my biggest pet peeves is seeing people use the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively." Last year, though, the Oxford English Dictionary edited the definition of the word "figuratively" to include "literally," meaning that the two are essentially interchangeable. As a lover of words and all things language, I wonder if it's a bit hypocritical of me to be annoyed at this change when one of the beauties of language is its ability to be malleable, much like society.

What are your thoughts on the ever-changing nature of language? Should we leave it as we know it or allow common usage to create new rules and regulations? Do you find yourself aggravated at some of the ways language is changing with the times, or are you appreciative that we actually can change language?

I'm annoyed at that particular change, but overall appreciate that language evolves.

I've actually (literally ) almost started this very topic several times.

I, too, am not very happy with this change. I know that living languages such as ours are constantly changing, but I think that this particular change came about due to widespread ignorance. I think that many people have begun to use this word to emphasize a point, but they don't actually know what it means.

If this keeps going, I'll need a new dictionary very soon...I have to agree that this is an annoying change, but is it unusual these days for a change like this to happen? Or do we just have to get used to it?

Language evolves as human interactions keeps evolving I guess we are going to have to get used to it.

Esies98 wrote:Language evolves as human interactions keeps evolving I guess we are going to have to get used to it.

I think you're right...

I suppose that changes in language are an historical inevitability, but the example you cite (figuratively vs. literally) is simply wrong. Someone at Oxford Press needs to be fired. The term figuratively, though not actually an antonym of literally is most often associated to contrast the illusory with the factual. To make them synonymous is just plain silly. The breach between the definitions is far too great in my opinion.

Dos the Oxford Press explain somewhere why they did this?

I'm not sure if there's a full explanation, but I assume it's similar to the fictional scenario in the YA novel Frindle, (a middle school boy invents the word "frindle" to replace "pen," and it eventually becomes part of the dictionary) - if enough people use a word to mean something, eventually, it means whatever they say it means.

I also get annoyed when I hear someone using "literally" in place of "figuratively."

There was a girl I worked with who would tell a story (supposed to be funny, I assume) and would say, "I literally died laughing." ---Uh.. No, you didn't.

I'm not at all a fan of this change in particular, but I'm torn on the topic in general. Language does change and evolve (some of the words that we think are perfectly normal were slang years ago), and that isn't necessarily good or bad.

Although I understand the need to add "new" words to the dictionary like selfie and other modern lingo, I can not understand why they would change the definition of literally/figuratively. That's like everyone deciding one day to start calling apples blue. So people now say I want to eat a blue. Just because a lot of people use the word the wrong way doesn't make it right therefore it should not be added to a dictionary or have it's definition updated.

Sarah_Khan wrote:Just because a lot of people use the word the wrong way doesn't make it right therefore it should not be added to a dictionary or have it's definition updated.

Ah, thank you! I couldn't put my finger on why this bothered me so much when I know that language evolves, but this usage is just wrong.

I laughed when I saw this thread. I think anyone with a teenager has heard "literally" used in place of figuratively countless times. My favorite example of this is when my daughter stood in the middle of a grocery store and told me in great disgust that there was "literally nothing to eat in this place."

As far as language changes go, I guess change is hard for me, and it's a sad fact that I'm old enough to have seen a lot of change. I still remember my outrage when "nauseous" became an acceptable word to describe feeling nauseated. I would stomp around and huff that only stupid people would describe themselves as being nauseating to others when they meant that they were nauseated. But change happens even without my blessing and although I probably won't ever describe myself as nauseous, I have made peace with other people doing so.

My husband and I joke about this all the time. It drives me batty when people miss use the word. I am less than thrilled that an official change was made. I respect that language evolves, but to allow a word to mean both one thing and its opposite is too confusing. It is like we have put slang ahead of logic.