/music

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.

Search

Related Posts

  • Phred

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

  • whateverever

    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.

    • Constance

      This isn’t a matter of formality, though. This is just plain wrong.

  • http://twitter.com/terrametis Terra Metis

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

  • Constance

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