This will inevitably raise the age-old question whether dictionaries should describe the language as it's used, or the language as it should be used.
But, if you're going to take the rubbish written on the internet as the definition of English, then it's only a small matter of time before school dictionaries tell u that u means you. Looking forward to that, r we?
19 comments:
We have sunk low since Dr. Johnson's time. My faith in Merriam Webster's, once considerable, was shaken when it insisted that backseat(sic) as a noun was one word.
Meanwhile, I had checked in to pass along the pleasant news that I saw Sacred Games on the shelf at the Getty Villa last month, I think in connection with an exhibit on Cyrus.
Peter, thanks so much for letting me know Sacred Games was on the shelves at the Getty Villa. Wow.
For those who haven't been there, the Getty Villa is one of the world's foremost ancient history museums. The whole place is a work of art. Highly recommended.
I literally feel like I've hit a new high with that news. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
The Getty Villa has a suitable setting for a villa, like Hadrian’s, but in better shape.
My mention of Dr. Johnson was no idle invocation. I bought an edition of his dictionary at the Huntington on the same trip that took me to the Getty Villa. (The Huntington includes a fine portrait of Johnson by Joshua Reynolds.) Johnson had opinions about what was high and what was low. God forbid a lexicographer should attempt something similar today. The very notion that some usages are good (or, rather, “good”) and others bad is so hierarchical, so prescriptive, so legacy.
Can I have the links and/or printed sources for your claim, please?
I just googled "Merriam-Webster literally" and got this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally which to my understanding gives the "real" definition.
OK, English is only my fourth language, so could be I've misunderstood something. Care to clarify, please (including all your commenters who have English as first language)?
/PT
PT, your fourth language! I'm impressed.
Check definition #2 on the page you quote. It's the opposite of definition #1. Literally means the statement is actually, definitely, totally, precisely true.
A lot of people took to using literally to emphasize something that's a gross exaggeration. "I'm literally dying for a cup of coffee." Which if taken in the correct sense of literal would mean I will soon physically die if I don't get a cup of coffee. This misuse is probably more common now than the correct meaning.
Google's done the same. Google 'literal' then click more for the second definition.
I should have added, the correct word for the second situation is figuratively. But no one ever says that.
Peter, don't quote me, but I believe the Getty Villa was modeled after a for-real Roman country villa that had been excavatated. So it really does look like what the rich lived in 2,000 years ago.
Yes, that pool area is astounding. I remember hanging around the surrounding stoa for ages simply to enjoy the view.
Re Dr Johnson, you'd be just the right man to start a new dictionary!
Gary,
I hate disagree with a person who a) has English as native language and b) is a word-smith like you, but...
I can't see any differences between definition 1) and 2) - especially after you click to link http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/literally which is definition for English language learners.
Am I just too thick, tired or missing a nuance here?
Btw, for us Scandinavians having English as second/third/fourth language is not unusual. Most of us learn English as the first foreing language at school. I'm an expection as I had both Finnish and Finnish-Swedish as home language, then I had a Swedish teacher on the 3rd grade (my first "foreing" language at school) who insisted of speaking Swedish-Swedish, then I started English at 5th grade and later in life and dipped into Danish, German, Spanish, Finnish Sing Language and Frech (in order I've come a cross of those languages).
Yeah, that's a crap example of literally from Norman Cousins. I don't quite buy the suggestion that such usage constitutes deliberate hyperbole, sarcasm, or exaggeration, the way, say, I could care less can. Misuse of literally is down to ignorance.
I am several lifetimes short of Dr. Johnson's erudition, but I like to think I partake of his spirit.
I, too, seem to recall something about the Getty Villa having an ancient model. The Romans were a fine lot for putting up public and de luxe private buildings in beautiful settings (Caesarea, Tivoli, Split, Tunisia. Evora, et. al).
@Peter, I also recall reading about Getty Villa being modelled after a Roman village (too tired to google (Or Google - is a websearch already a noun?). I know I have somewhere in my bookshelves a book about the place. Unfortunanetly couldn't visit them while I worked in US, one of the disappointments in my life...
/PT
The definitions of literally for English-language learners are clearer and more accurate than the main definitions. The problem is that the second sense of literally is wrong (or will be regarded as so by literate, careful speakers and writers.):
2 informal — used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible ▪ The group literally poured out new ideas. [=the group produced many new ideas] ▪ Steam was literally coming out of his ears. [=he was very angry] ▪ She was literally beside herself with rage.
I regard that less as a definition than as an a posteriori excuse for a frequent mistake. And that's were a philosophy of usage comes in. If a mistake is repeated enough, people who know no better will come to regard it as a correct, and then at some point, it must be regarded as such. I say that as long as even a single speaker remains who regards a mistake as wrong, it's wrong.
Interesting you should lowercase google. The company would probably insist that is be uppercase in all uses. It is wrong.
Right, I get now the nuances between literally and "literally". Thanks Gary and you teaching me the finesses (and no sarcasm intended)! Interesting, though, that the latter meaning is quite acceptable.
But well, I have had fights about the Danish word "Bjørnetjeneste" (meaning ill service, literally "Bear service" - as a bear will hug you death); the Danish teenagers seems to think that being hugged by a bear is actually a good thing, so a "Bjørnetjeneste" has started to take a positive meaning.
(Oh, need to clarify: I have now lived in Denmark almost 12 years).
/PT
The problem in Denmark, it seems to me, is not that young people are less literate than they were, but rather that they have lost contact with the natural world and are unaware of the true nature of bears.>
PT, you would be a whole lot less impressed by my English if you saw how often my editor, my copyeditor and my wife have to correct my sentences. (I am forever grateful.)
The bear service problem sounds to me like a standard case of teenager. In English at the moment teenagers call something sick if they think it's good. (sigh)
Of course I guess this means someone will go trawling through my books to see if I've misused literally.
That person might literally pore over it with a fine-toothed comb.
That person might literally pore over it with a fine-toothed comb.
Post a Comment