Language: Evolving or Degrading?

[McLaren]

Recently the word "literally" received a second definition. According to a Google Search of "define literally" the definition of literally is as follows.

literally

1. in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
   "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
2. informal
   used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
   "I have received literally thousands of letters"

That's right. Literally now means both literally and not literally.

In addition, the word "peruse" is a commonly misused word. The traditional definition is to read through and examine something carefully. Often times people would use the word to describe lightly skimming over reading material. Depending on which dictionary you ask, this is sometimes recognized as a secondary definition.

Some argue that language is meant to evolve. In the same way that we no longer use sentence structure from the days of Shakespeare, definitions that do not agree with modern parlance will be phased out. Others argue that allowing language to be determined by democracy will lead to a confusing and ultimately useless language.

Where do you stand?

Did I literally just see the first definition of the word used to describe the second definition. Wut?

 

[Joel]

Something related to this that aggravates me is when companies purposely misspell their company's name or product's name to sound cute or something. Here are some examples.

Krispy Kreme, Play-Doh, Rice Krispies, Froot Loops, Luvs, etc.

Not about sounding cute. You can't trademark common words, same thing with blu-ray for example.

 

[Vegard]

Did I literally just see the first definition of the word used to describe the second definition. Wut?

If you apply the second definition to the description it actually reads: ...while not being not literally true = while being true.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

Did I literally just see the first definition of the word used to describe the second definition. Wut?

If you apply the second definition to the description it actually reads: ...while not being not literally true = while being true.

What did I just read?

 

[Liquid]

Gorilla Monsoon has now been retroactively justified when he used to commentate on the WWF saying people were "literally hanging from the rafters".

But again, @Zenith, who has updated this definition? I go back to my point about standardisation being a large problem with the English language.

 

[Zenith]

Gorilla Monsoon has now been retroactively justified when he used to commentate on the WWF saying people were "literally hanging from the rafters".

But again, @Zenith, who has updated this definition? I go back to my point about standardisation being a large problem with the English language.

My example is a direct quote from Google when given the search "define literally."

You can also see the secondary definition at Merriam Webster.

 

[Imari]

Did I literally just see the first definition of the word used to describe the second definition. Wut?

Recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define...woah, room spin.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define...woah, room spin.

No, @McLaren was just taking the mick out of @Zenith who miswrote his post. He wote that the new definition followed but it didn't, the primary definition did. And that definition's example isn't recursive

Typical McLaren-esque-ishness

 

[ProjectWHaT]

Recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define recursive definitions define...woah, room spin.

No, @McLaren was just taking the mick out of @Zenith who miswrote his post. He wote that the new definition followed but it didn't, the primary definition did. And that definition's example isn't recursive

Typical McLaren-esque-ishness

Mind = blown

 

[Imari]

No, @McLaren was just taking the mick out of @Zenith who miswrote his post. He wote that the new definition followed but it didn't, the primary definition did. And that definition's example isn't recursive

Typical McLaren-esque-ishness

"Literally" means "not literally". But then to understand that, you need to know what literally means. Quick, let's look up the definition!

"Literally" means "not literally". But then to understand that, you need to know what literally means. Quick, let's look up the definition!

"Literally" means "not literally". But then to understand that, you need to know what literally means. Quick, let's look up the definition!

"Literally" means "not literally". But then to understand that, you need to know what literally means. Quick, let's look up the definition!

Etc., ad infinitum, peas and carrots.



That's a completely normal definition, and I can see no reason that anyone should be confused by that whatsoever.

 

[86Debris86]

"Literally" means "not literally". But then to understand that, you need to know what literally means. Quick, let's look up the definition!

"Literally" means "not literally". But then to understand that, you need to know what literally means. Quick, let's look up the definition!
"Literally" means "not literally". But then to understand that, you need to know what literally means. Quick, let's look up the definition!

"Literally" means "not literally". But then to understand that, you need to know what literally means. Quick, let's look up the definition!
Etc., ad infinitum, peas and carrots.



That's a completely normal definition, and I can see no reason that anyone should be confused by that whatsoever.

Reminds me of a bit from a comic by Johnny Hart:

Pollute - to cause pollution.

Pollution - the act of polluting.

Polluting - to pollute.

 

[Zenith]

No, @McLaren was just taking the mick out of @Zenith who miswrote his post. He wote that the new definition followed but it didn't, the primary definition did. And that definition's example isn't recursive

Typical McLaren-esque-ishness

I cited Google as the origin of this definition. If we want to discuss recursive definitions, we can take it up with Google.

 

[BobK]

A tautology is a tautology is a tautology.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I cited Google as the origin of this definition. If we want to discuss recursive definitions, we can take it up with Google.

Call me Mr. Thicky Crappy Butler Weed, but where's the recursive definition in what you posted?

 

[photonrider]

There is a word out there recently being used that I'm not sure I want to listen too.

'hangry'

It means 'cranky due to lack of sugar.'

What's the proper word?

 

[Liquid]

There is a word out there recently being used that I'm not sure I want to listen too.

'hangry'

It means 'cranky due to lack of sugar.'

What's the proper word?

And there it is.

We are increasingly looking to shorten terms, words and phrases. Looking for a quick-fix acronym or portmanteau rather than seeking out a 'correct' or longer term.

It is now no longer permissible for a word to not exist. As photonrider points out, what's the word for the feeling due to a sugar crash? Not the term, not the appropriate phrase, not the fact that he's already described the situation in five words, but the word. And if such a word doesn't exist, we'll create it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It is now no longer permissible for a word to not exist. As photonrider points out, what's the word for the feeling due to a sugar crash? Not the term, not the appropriate phrase, not the fact that he's already described the situation in five words, but the word. And if such a word doesn't exist, we'll create it.

Welcome to language as a function of the way we communicate. Once there was no word for the information sharing network via which we're communicating. Once "pleonasm" didn't exist.

I support the sensible evolution of language but not the one noted in the OP

And "hangry". Shudder.

EDIT: Relevant pic is relevant;

 

[PsuPepperoni]

During a NASCAR race a few weeks ago, one of the announcers said that a driver "literally kicked in the afterburners."

I don't know why a driver would intentionally damage his afterburners like that. Maybe it was too pass the post-race inspection, since those are likely illegal, but I could probably come up with a more subtle way to destroy them.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

This is true. Everyone knows that the best way to destroy the afterburners is to use the flux capacitor to limit the flow of headlight and blinker fluid to the muffler bearings. Literally kicking them does nothing but hurt your foot.

 

[nascarfan1400]

This is true. Everyone knows that the best way to destroy the afterburners is to use the flux capacitor to limit the flow of headlight and blinker fluid to the muffler bearings. Literally kicking them does nothing but hurt your foot.

But NASCAR drivers have lead feet.

 

[Famine]

what's the word for the feeling due to a sugar crash?

Hypoglycaemia.

 

[Zenith]

Call me Mr. Thicky Crappy Butler Weed, but where's the recursive definition in what you posted?

Here.

Recently the word "literally" received a second definition. According to a Google Search of "define literally" the definition of literally is as follows.

literally

1. in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
   "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle"
2. informal
   used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
   "I have received literally thousands of letters"

Notice how the word literally appears in the second definition of literally.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

Someone change the title to:
Language: Literally evolving or literally degrading? Or literally?

 

[TenEightyOne]

the driver took it literally when asked to go straight across the traffic circle

Okay, not your words, but what in that definition doesn't make sense or is recursive?

I remember it as a great Bob Newhart monologue though.

 

[Scaff]

I find it rather interesting to see the 'horror' at the evolution of the word literally with its shift to mean both, when this kind of thing has occurred before within the English language.

Take the word Awful. Today is a word used to describe 'bad' or 'terrible' events, you certainly would not be too pleased to be described in such a way. However its origin was the exact opposite, used to describe that which filled one with Awe, something most people would have no issue with at all.

So before being filled with horror at the thought of a word changing, consider that you may well already be using words that have been through this change. What an awful thought!

 

[ShiftingGears]

Latest pet hate. It's 'a couple of years ago'. Not 'a couple years ago'.

 

[niky]

Language. We're all doomed.

doom: noun - fate or destiny.

 

[Liquid]

Hypoglycaemia.

Ha, I was tempted to include this in my post but then I thought I was waffling on too much.

As you demonstrate, quite a few terms, especially in the example given, already have words which accurately describe them. Anything medical or scientific. Kudos to Greek and Latin for that.

But of course, hypoglycaemia is about five syllables too much for today's modern bone idler. Hence we go for buzzwords like the aforementioned 'hangry' which I already hate.

 

[Famine]

Well, even diabetics just go for "hypo".

 

[Liquid]

Some people can't even use whole euphemisms for being drunk. Nobody is legless or steaming, instead people are leggo or steamo.

But this might be a localised thing.