Don’t Change the Meaning of Literally

It’s an uphill battle when you disagree with a dictionary, but not “literally” uphill. (image via wikimedia)

“This is literally the worst day in my life!” my youngest daughter said when I returned home from work.

Literally?  I started to think of my daughter’s other bad days.  There have been deaths in the family, serious injuries, and broken friendships.  I prepared for the worst.  Instead, my daughter explained that there’d been some school drama and a teacher had yelled at her for running in the hallway.

“That’s it?” I said.  “You had me scared at literally.”

“You literally take literally too seriously,” she said.

I didn’t argue with her. I’m glad my daughter knows the meaning of literally, but that knowledge shouldn’t excuse her for misusing it.

When it comes to changes in the meanings of words, literally should be the line in the sand.  I don’t mean we should literally draw a line in the sand because that would be stupid.  I mean, we should remain stubborn against those who would willingly change the meaning of literally to something that doesn’t mean literally.

Even the dictionary has acknowledged the recent change in the misuse of literally.  The first definition of literally in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is fine:

in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expression

So far, so good.  That’s pretty much what literally has always meant (and should always mean).  Then, in an attempt to explain the new ironic meaning of literally, Merriam-Webster describes  definition #2 as:

 “in effect: virtually.” 

To me, virtually is almost a simile for literally.  So Merriam-Webster then has to clarify with:

used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible

I was told to never use a word to define itself.  This new pseudo-definition of literally is so senseless that the dictionary can’t even define it without using the phrase NOT literally.  If a new meaning of a word requires that the word itself be used in the definition, then the new meaning is disqualified from being taken seriously.

That’s not really a rule, but it should be.

Merriam-Webster even tries to sidestep the issue, when it posts this at the bottom of the literally definition:

Should literally be used for emphasis?

Sense 2 is common and not at all new but has been frequently criticized as an illogical misuse. It is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

That’s a cop-out.

Here’s how that section should have looked.

Should literally be used for emphasis?

No.

See?  That’s responsible use of the power that Merriam-Webster has.  What’s the point of having authority if you’re not willing to take a stand for something so obvious?

Maybe if Merriam-Webster changes the definition of literally on the website (or in its print edition) without using the phrase “not literally,” then I’ll reconsider my metaphorical line in the sand.

Some might call me a language prude, but that’s just name-calling, and name-calling isn’t really an argument.  I write porn jokes and dissect sex scenes in literature, so I’m immune from being called a prude.  I even believe in language evolution.  But I have my limits, and literally is my limit.

*****

What do you think?  Should we let the evolution of literally go unchallenged?  What other word meanings do you think should be preserved?

*****

If you read these two books, you might literally enjoy them.

Now only 99 cents each on the Amazon Kindle!