Relatively Literal: Dictionaries Grudgingly Accepting Common Use Of "Literally"
There is a battlefield that is centuries old, on which warriors with lifetimes of experience engage in daily combat. Their weapons range from those developed by the ancient Chinese in the 2nd century BC to technology unleashed only last year, and this battle happens all around us. It is a war with no clear conditions of victory, one which is destined to go on until the end of humanity, which it may very well bring about.
Yes, we're talking about the Grammar War, and there has been a new development.
Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.
That's right, grammar soldiers. The common, exaggerated, and logically incorrect definition of the word "literally" is now being adopted. And Google isn't the only one. The Oxford Dictionary and Merriam-Webster also seem to have signaled defeat in this particularly vicious debate, and accepted that the word now means the opposite of what it actually means. Sorry, Taylor.
I think this brings up an interesting debate, albeit not a new one. Should language be democratically built? Should an incorrect use of a word become a correct version of the word simply due to popularity? Or should we attempt to defend traditional grammar and structure?
If so, is there a more effective method to combat this movement than pedantically pointing out every grammar issue in someone's Facebook status?
While I would welcome hearty debate, be nice in the comments section. I know this can be an inflammable topic. Or is it flammable?
Oh, and here's Chris Traeger.
To leave a comment