[leephillips]

It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake without someone helpfully pointing out that language changes (over time, even). We know that. We might know that, be well-behaved descriptivists, and yet still think that this definition is wrong. Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement. That doesn't mean that it won't be justified in another 40 years or so.

[lutusp]

> It seems one can not express the view that a dictionary made a mistake ...

But the dictionary didn't make a mistake. The word "literally" means what most people think, as well as its opposite. A dictionary's purpose is solely to report how people use words (it describes, it doesn't prescribe), and it got this use right.

> It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement.

That depends. Is this new definition out in the wild? Apparently so, in which case the listing is valid. Over at Webster's in the days of print, if a word was used with a particular meaning in ten recognized publications, it became official.

[dragonwriter]

> But the dictionary didn't make a mistake. The word "literally" means what most people think, as well as its opposite.

The figurative use of "literal" does not mean the opposite of the literal use (it doesn't mean "not literally (in its literal sense)", it means "as if literally (in its literal sense)".)

[lutusp]

Well, "figuratively" is an antonym for "literally", and this specific use of literally means figuratively. So they're opposite meanings.

http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/literallygloss.htm

Quote: "For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of 'in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.'"

[dragonwriter]

> Well, "figuratively" is an antonym for "literally", and this specific use of literally means figuratively.

No, it doesn't. Its an intensifier that is used when the fact that the use is figurative is (assumed by the speaker/writer) to be clear from context. The use of "literally" is not a means of communicating the fact that the modified term is being used figuratively, it is used to convey the idea that the experience represented by the clearly-figurative use has unusual proximity to the experience that would occur were the modified term literally applicable.

Yes, lots of people say it means the exact opposite, but it doesn't, and you can't understand what people are saying when they use it if you think it does.

[dragonwriter]

1. What is your standard for judging whether a definition is right or wrong? (What is the objective measure being applied?) 2. What is your justification for applying that standard to the dictionary in question? (Is it the dictionaries stated policy? It is broadly accepted as the right standard by linguists?) 3. Where is the evidence that the standard has not been met with regard to the definition in question?

If you want to make the argument that the definition was improper, make the argument, but so far, it just sounds like you are asserting your preferred usage as the only allowed one, as there doesn't seem to be anything else offered to support your criticism.

[mcphage]

> yet still think that this definition is wrong. Because we don't think that an ignorant habit on the part of certain 14 year old girls means that the language has actually changed yet. It's a judgement call, and it might just be that displaying this definition shows poor judgement.

You might think that, but you would be incorrect. This usage is very common, and much more widespread than 14 year old girls. Maybe the people in your circle don't use it that way, but the plural of anecdote is not data.

[norswap]

If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake, you're literally wrong.

[lutusp]

> If you think only 14 year old girls make this mistake ...

It's not a mistake -- people are free to use words any way they want. Also, the "literally" entry over a Merriam-Webster shows Norman Cousins using the word this way:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

2 : in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

Language isn't a science, it's an art. This is an example of artistic freedom.

[leephillips]

I hear you. I never really understood the meaning of "ironic" until the work of Alanis Morissette.