“Literally” the worst definition in the English language
As an English major, I am passionate about the Oxford comma, the correct use of “you’re” and “your,” and the definition of the word “literally.” I will literally throw a fit if someone uses the wrong grammar — no, no, I will literally go on a rant for 10 minutes about the proper use of a word — no, no, I… never mind.
I have always prided myself in using the word “literally” in its proper definition: in a literal, exact sense. Yes, I have actually (literally) ranted about this word for 10 minutes before.
(This is, of course, for all you native English speakers out there. If English is your second, third, or fourth language, you’ve got nothing but admiration from me. I needed extra education to, as John Mulaney puts it, “receive a four-year degree in a language I already spoke.” Hats off to you.)
You can imagine my horror when I opened up Merriam-Webster’s dictionary last week (as one does) to discover that the word “literally” is defined as both “in a literal sense or manner” and “in effect: virtually.” Yes, you heard me: virtually. Here’s the full secondary definition: “Used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible.”
So, yes, the proper definition of “literally” is both “in a literal sense” and “not in a literal sense.” Riddle me that.
Definitions have never been static, and I’m okay with that. The word “gay” was traditionally defined as “happily excited/merry” and is now more commonly related to same-gender attraction. The word “run” has over 600 definitions. Language evolves and definitions change all the time. I’m not a stickler for traditional definitions. I have no problem with an active and living language, which means you won’t catch me using “cute” to describe Rumplestiltskin, using its 18th-century definition of clever or shrewd. And sure, the English language is basically a patchwork quilt of words taken from other languages.
However, it is my (strong) opinion that a word should not have two opposing definitions.
Here are the arguments Merriam-Webster gives for defining the word literally as “virtually”: this definition is commonly used, it does not quite mean figuratively, and it has been in use by esteemed writers since the 18th century. However, an incorrect use of a word should not be added to the dictionary simply because people use it incorrectly. People often say “I could care less” to indicate that they don’t care — the proper phrase is “I couldn’t care less.” Secondly, although their definition does not completely mean figuratively (an antonym for “literally”), it still strays to the opposite spectrum of the original meaning. Finally, authors like Mark Twain and James Joyce, who used “literally” in this way, are known for their intentionally rule-breaking grammar (to establish voice or stream of consciousness). Who’s to say they did not intend for their use of “literally” to be seen as incorrect?
By forcing a word to have opposite definitions simultaneously, the word becomes meaningless. What’s the point of using “literally” in a sentence when it might not be interpreted literally? It’s an insult to etymology. It’s an insult to humanity, and I won’t stand for it.
Sorry, Chris Traeger from Parks and Recreation. I will not rest until “literally” receives the justice (and the definition) it deserves. This is a hill I am literally willing to die on. Wait, no…
Literally Definition. (Merriam-Webster)
Danaye studies English and procrastination at UFV and is very passionate about the Oxford comma. She spends her days walking to campus from the free parking zones, writing novels she'll never finish, and pretending to know how to pronounce abominable. Once she graduates, she plans to adopt a cat.
