Yeah, but it’s just Websters that acknowledges the use of literally to mean, “virtually,” or, “figuratively,” and they’ve gotten so much shit for that they wrote 3 paragraphs after the definition and a whole separate article trying to justify it. It’s completely unjustifiable; their definition actually says, “a statement or description that is not literally true.” Normally you never want to define a word with the word itself, much less define it as the the opposite of the word itself, but that’s what happens when you try to turn an antonym into a synonym.
The purpose of dictionaries is to reflect how the public uses a word. It would be correct of a dictionary to include this definition because it’s literally how the public uses the word literally. It must be frustrating when a definition changes, but it’s not like the dictionary has any actual authority outside of scrabble.
The purpose of a dictionary is also to provide clear definitions so that words have universal meanings. There’s a difference between adding a second definition to a word to reflect common slang, like adding the drug-related meaning to tweak, and accepting the misinterpretation of a word as correct, like irregardless. There’s a reason other reputable dictionaries like Oxford didn’t adopt the use of Literally to mean, “virtually,” (and it’s a little embarrassing that the American-English dictionary did).
I don’t see it on dictionary.com or Websters. I don’t see any problem with adding it as an alternate slang definition, but I feel like it’s gonna fall out of fashion before it gets used widely enough to justify adding it to a dictionary. I also don’t see how it relates to what I’m saying, since (as far as I know) it’s use doesn’t come from people not know what, “cap,” means.
It relates to what I’m saying about language and dictionaries. I’ve mentioned this before but maybe not to you - dictionaries aren’t an authority on language, unless you’re playing a board game like scrabble. What was incorrect years ago (e.g., using the word “literally” to mean “figuratively”) is now correct in the dictionary, because the people using the language have evolved the language.
no cap.
And that’s the thing about slang, it will eventually become part of language enough that it will be added to dictionaries. Dictionaries not keeping up with this aren’t doing their job and they’ll fall out of fashion. To my knowledge, all major dictionaries do this (follow language used in society and define what it means in the dictionary).
The “no cap” example is one that relates to what i’m trying to say about dictionaries. Sadly, I can’t find a good definition of “cap” in the context of “cap / no cap” so the dictionaries need to catch up to this, and that’s a problem, because we otherwise don’t know what these words mean. From my understanding, cap means “to lie” as in to not tell a truth, so “no cap” would mean “no lie” and “no cap?” would mean “you’re not lying right?”. Urban dictionary, for all the shit it gets, does a pretty good job of keeping up with this. Websters is probably the best real dictionary that’s going to be likely to have useful defintions of words.
From what I hear, it sounds like oxford is going to stagnate, likely not adding new words very often, even as new words are made. If I want to get information on current events, I’m not going to haul out encyclopedia britanica, I’m going to start with wikipedia and go from there. Etc…
Now, perhaps Oxford will be always representitive to the queen’s / king’s english, but since no one (at least in america) speaks that, I doubt it will have much relevance unless they get with the times.
I mean, it’s weird that you keep trying convince me that dictionaries aren’t the authority on language, but also incorrectly using, “literally,” is acceptable now because it’s in a dictionary. It’s literally the first thing you said to me, and it directly contradicts what you’re saying now.
There’s nothing wrong with adding slang to a dictionary, but slang comes and goes quickly, so it’s not the best idea to clutter up a language repository with meanings that will be obsolete in less than a decade. Remember that summer kids were saying, “on fleek?” Turns out we didn’t need to bother adding, “on fleek,” to our dictionaries.
You mentioned Urban Dictionary, “getting shit,” but as a slang dictionary, it’s not bad. Slang dictionaries are nothing new, and they’re very helpful for keeping up with the kind of language changes that you’re talking about. Regional vernacular and fad words belong in a slang dictionary; only slang that has proven to stick around, like, “cool,” “kid,” or “chill,” should make their way into a regular dictionary.
Merriam-Websters makes a lot of additions that just shouldn’t be in a regular dictionary, and seem like they’re made only to get attention. They added, “Bootylicous,” in 2004. Nobody says bootylicous anymore. Nobody said it in 2004, that word peaked in 2002 at the latest. But they got a lot of attention that year for adding that word, just like they got a lot of attention last year for adding the incorrect usage of, “literally.”
Definitions matter. They’re supposed to change over time, but they’re also supposed to be rigid enough that people can reference their correct/incorrect meaning. If definitions were meant to be entirely fluid, we wouldn’t need dictionaries in the first place. I know you think most people only use dictionaries when they’re playing board games, but the truth is they are mostly used in academia, where people need to make sure they’re using words properly. That’s why adding a common misuse of a word to a dictionary is such a bad idea.
Yeah, but there’s a difference between a word that had contradictory meanings for generations and one dictionary changing it’s definition to reflect misuse.
Yeah, but it’s just Websters that acknowledges the use of literally to mean, “virtually,” or, “figuratively,” and they’ve gotten so much shit for that they wrote 3 paragraphs after the definition and a whole separate article trying to justify it. It’s completely unjustifiable; their definition actually says, “a statement or description that is not literally true.” Normally you never want to define a word with the word itself, much less define it as the the opposite of the word itself, but that’s what happens when you try to turn an antonym into a synonym.
The purpose of dictionaries is to reflect how the public uses a word. It would be correct of a dictionary to include this definition because it’s literally how the public uses the word literally. It must be frustrating when a definition changes, but it’s not like the dictionary has any actual authority outside of scrabble.
The purpose of a dictionary is also to provide clear definitions so that words have universal meanings. There’s a difference between adding a second definition to a word to reflect common slang, like adding the drug-related meaning to tweak, and accepting the misinterpretation of a word as correct, like irregardless. There’s a reason other reputable dictionaries like Oxford didn’t adopt the use of Literally to mean, “virtually,” (and it’s a little embarrassing that the American-English dictionary did).
no cap?
Sorry, don’t follow. You mean like, “no lie?”
Well, what does the dictionary say? isn’t that the purpose of it? (to find meaning in modern language)
I don’t see it on dictionary.com or Websters. I don’t see any problem with adding it as an alternate slang definition, but I feel like it’s gonna fall out of fashion before it gets used widely enough to justify adding it to a dictionary. I also don’t see how it relates to what I’m saying, since (as far as I know) it’s use doesn’t come from people not know what, “cap,” means.
It relates to what I’m saying about language and dictionaries. I’ve mentioned this before but maybe not to you - dictionaries aren’t an authority on language, unless you’re playing a board game like scrabble. What was incorrect years ago (e.g., using the word “literally” to mean “figuratively”) is now correct in the dictionary, because the people using the language have evolved the language.
no cap.
And that’s the thing about slang, it will eventually become part of language enough that it will be added to dictionaries. Dictionaries not keeping up with this aren’t doing their job and they’ll fall out of fashion. To my knowledge, all major dictionaries do this (follow language used in society and define what it means in the dictionary).
The “no cap” example is one that relates to what i’m trying to say about dictionaries. Sadly, I can’t find a good definition of “cap” in the context of “cap / no cap” so the dictionaries need to catch up to this, and that’s a problem, because we otherwise don’t know what these words mean. From my understanding, cap means “to lie” as in to not tell a truth, so “no cap” would mean “no lie” and “no cap?” would mean “you’re not lying right?”. Urban dictionary, for all the shit it gets, does a pretty good job of keeping up with this. Websters is probably the best real dictionary that’s going to be likely to have useful defintions of words.
From what I hear, it sounds like oxford is going to stagnate, likely not adding new words very often, even as new words are made. If I want to get information on current events, I’m not going to haul out encyclopedia britanica, I’m going to start with wikipedia and go from there. Etc…
Now, perhaps Oxford will be always representitive to the queen’s / king’s english, but since no one (at least in america) speaks that, I doubt it will have much relevance unless they get with the times.
I mean, it’s weird that you keep trying convince me that dictionaries aren’t the authority on language, but also incorrectly using, “literally,” is acceptable now because it’s in a dictionary. It’s literally the first thing you said to me, and it directly contradicts what you’re saying now.
There’s nothing wrong with adding slang to a dictionary, but slang comes and goes quickly, so it’s not the best idea to clutter up a language repository with meanings that will be obsolete in less than a decade. Remember that summer kids were saying, “on fleek?” Turns out we didn’t need to bother adding, “on fleek,” to our dictionaries.
You mentioned Urban Dictionary, “getting shit,” but as a slang dictionary, it’s not bad. Slang dictionaries are nothing new, and they’re very helpful for keeping up with the kind of language changes that you’re talking about. Regional vernacular and fad words belong in a slang dictionary; only slang that has proven to stick around, like, “cool,” “kid,” or “chill,” should make their way into a regular dictionary.
Merriam-Websters makes a lot of additions that just shouldn’t be in a regular dictionary, and seem like they’re made only to get attention. They added, “Bootylicous,” in 2004. Nobody says bootylicous anymore. Nobody said it in 2004, that word peaked in 2002 at the latest. But they got a lot of attention that year for adding that word, just like they got a lot of attention last year for adding the incorrect usage of, “literally.”
Definitions matter. They’re supposed to change over time, but they’re also supposed to be rigid enough that people can reference their correct/incorrect meaning. If definitions were meant to be entirely fluid, we wouldn’t need dictionaries in the first place. I know you think most people only use dictionaries when they’re playing board games, but the truth is they are mostly used in academia, where people need to make sure they’re using words properly. That’s why adding a common misuse of a word to a dictionary is such a bad idea.
You must also hate the words sanction or dust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contronym
Yeah, but there’s a difference between a word that had contradictory meanings for generations and one dictionary changing it’s definition to reflect misuse.