[lutusp]

This is not at all surprising. Other online dictionaries list both definitions as well, on the ground that a dictionary's purpose is to dispassionately report how people use words, not try to be consistent when people aren't consistent.

[D_Alex]

Counterpoint, from http://theweek.com/article/index/241002/how-the-wrong-defini...

>Much to the chagrin of grammar-lovers everywhere, it turns out that this informal (and completely incorrect) use of "literally" has actually been added to three established dictionaries, as Reddit user andtheniansaid pointed out.

..."completely incorrect"...!

[kivikakk]

"completely incorrect" is useless prescriptivism. They can call it incorrect all they like, it won't stop anyone.

[D_Alex]

It may be ineffective prescriptivism. The usefulness is in the fact that we should have a word that unambiguously means "in a strict sense, without exaggeration".

What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite, and there is no way to tell from the context, eg:

"When the tiger went "Rawr! Rawrrr!", I literally fouled my breeches!"

[mtowle]

>the fact that we should

Can't have a factual should. Shoulds are normative.

>What is kind of useless is a word that can mean some thing or its opposite

Is the word really useless or indeed useful if no one can provide a 'real' example of actual ambiguity between the two meanings? Furthermore, it's not as if ambiguity between one meaning and an opposite meaning is the greatest ambiguity there is-- if anything, it makes it particularly obvious which meaning the speaker intends.

[Chris2048]

Surely you can if a source of reference is used? i.e "fact we should" = "fact that most of society believes we should"?

[lutusp]

But more, it misunderstands a dictionary's purpose, which is to dispassionately list how people choose to use words.

[D_Alex]

Not according to dictionary.com - that says that the purpose of the dictionary is to provide information on meaning and correct usage of the word.

Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive. But even the descriptive type should provide information on how the word is used, eg: "sometimes incorrectly used to mean 'figuratively'".

[lutusp]

> Not according to dictionary.com - that says that the purpose of the dictionary is to provide information on meaning and correct usage of the word.

Wait, think a minute. That description exactly corresponds with what I said. The "correct" usage of a word is precisely, exactly what the speaker thinks it means, at that moment in time.

If a dictionary listed a definition that was not in use by anyone, that would be different -- that would be incorrect.

> Also, Wikipedia refers to two types of dictionary: prescriptive and descriptive.

Yes, and there are no prescriptive dictionaries, at least not in English. The French have one, created by the Académie française:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise

Apart from the French example, it seems telling people how to use words has fallen out of fashion, giving way to another example of evolution by natural selection.

[lutusp]

> ..."completely incorrect"...!

So the person quoted doesn't actually know what a dictionary's purpose is. It seems there are still people who think a dictionary should prescribe, not describe.

This is by no means the only case where a word's meaning has changed over time, or even reversed its meaning. "Decimated", which now means destroyed or substantially destroyed depending on one's source, once meant reduced by a proportion of one tenth.

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimate

Notice the difference in the listings between Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com. It's an old tradition with Merriam-Webster (and its predecessor Webster's Dictionary) to list the oldest definitions first. It seems newer dictionaries have reversed this practice. Speaking of reversals. :)