Eh, kinda how the dictionary needs to work. It’s meant to be used to understand the language, so the dictionary can’t hold strong opinions and argue against how it’s used and remain useful.
I.E. Let’s say English is my second language, and I read something like “OMG I would literally kill myself.” And I go look up “literally” I’m a dictionary. If the very common antonym usage of it isn’t listed as a second definition, I’ll totally misunderstand.
So as much as we may not love that a word is flipping to mean its opposite, it is what it is and it’s not the role of the dictionary to take up that fight.
Oh, I mean the “fight” the person I’m replying to is suggesting, that dictionaries should be prescriptive (state how English should be, in this case arguing that “literal” shouldn’t be a valid word to use when you’re not being literal in the traditional sense), versus being descriptive (what dictionaries currently are, describing the language as it’s used without any assertions about how it “should” be).
Dictionaries have been adamantly descriptive since their inception, so they’re not at all doing what glitchdx is suggesting (thus literal having a secondary definition as an intensifier), and I’m arguing for the status quo.
Eh, kinda how the dictionary needs to work. It’s meant to be used to understand the language, so the dictionary can’t hold strong opinions and argue against how it’s used and remain useful.
I.E. Let’s say English is my second language, and I read something like “OMG I would literally kill myself.” And I go look up “literally” I’m a dictionary. If the very common antonym usage of it isn’t listed as a second definition, I’ll totally misunderstand.
So as much as we may not love that a word is flipping to mean its opposite, it is what it is and it’s not the role of the dictionary to take up that fight.
Take up what fight? I just checked two dictionaries and both note that literally can be used as a simple intensifier
Oh, I mean the “fight” the person I’m replying to is suggesting, that dictionaries should be prescriptive (state how English should be, in this case arguing that “literal” shouldn’t be a valid word to use when you’re not being literal in the traditional sense), versus being descriptive (what dictionaries currently are, describing the language as it’s used without any assertions about how it “should” be).
Dictionaries have been adamantly descriptive since their inception, so they’re not at all doing what glitchdx is suggesting (thus literal having a secondary definition as an intensifier), and I’m arguing for the status quo.