The wrong definition of ‘literally’ is literally going in the dictionary. Literally.

Posted on March 5, 2013 by

I literally cannot believe it. Did I use the word “literally” in the correct context? Anyone who has any basic knowledge of grammar would say no. Or you might say yes,  but then I would say you were wrong. At least up until today.

Dictionaries have begun expanding their current definition of the word (which is ‘without exaggeration’) to include that ‘literally’ can now be used for affect. And no, these are not dictionaries created by random teenagers trying to prove their parents wrong.

Oxford is doing it…

Webster’s is doing it…

Even Google is doing it!!

This is literally insane. Literally.

Related Posts

5 Responses to “The wrong definition of ‘literally’ is literally going in the dictionary. Literally.”

  1. Phred says:

    And the over use of the word “random”, that currently plagues us..

  2. whateverever says:

    They are not saying that it’s correct: they’re saying it’s in usage. “Ain’t” is defined in dictionaries, though not acceptable in formal situations.

  3. Terra Metis says:

    … and while we’re discussing grammar and usage, I’m thinking it should be “effect” there, not “affect”. 🙂

  4. Constance says:

    Why would they do this? No, it is not, *in effect*, “virtually”! Not even close!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *