Dictionaries literally have no purpose anymore

theguardian.com/commentisfre … definition

:imp: Why don’t we just stop using words altogether. :frowning:

I literally explode with rage whenever someone misuses this word.

Emily says:


Does this mean that they’ll have to hose bits of Ioa out of an apartment?

Mistress garpu, do you mean, ‘literally’, or literally

Nice link. I now know to blame Charlotte Bronte, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Alexander Pope and James Joyce for this literary abomination.

…it is, literally, hard to argue with Dickens, Bronte and Twain.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Not for an obtuse, Scottish Aussie canine like you, it isn’t!! :open_mouth: You could argue the tootie off Confucius!!


This whole discussion is, like, you know, awesome!!!

I mean, really really awesome.


like, literally! really really?

Fluff (literally!.. see avatar). :wink:

IMHO, awesomely.


That’s awful. :wink:

Master Bob, do you mean aweful?

There ain’t no such word, Fluff. I’m surprised at you, a cat of your education and breeding. :open_mouth:

It has come to this, opposites described by the same word, dogs and cats commenting in the same thread. Anarchy!

Master Bob! If you want to play with words, you have to play by the rules, or, make them up on the fly, whichever is the easiest for you. However, one of the Merriam Webster, Ask The editor, thingies, states that: If Fluff uses a word, it is a word, whether it is a word or not.

Unfortunately, Scriv’s forums being egalitarian, we have to allow the stinking canines to state their cases… however rubbishy they may be.

Orsum Fluff

There was, at one time, a man of high stature in his profession: he was, and I mince no words, a radio announcer; not a raffish, squeaky-toned adolescent of the sort who now populate the airwaves, but a man of substance, with a voice of substance, with which he strove mightily and manfully (how else you may ask) to introduce, comment upon, and otherwise extend the public image of… how ought one to put it?.. to generate support for popular singers of the day.

He was, you may be sure, highly regarded in his community and in the profession of which he was so significant a part. And on a day — a day I remember most clearly and not without a soupçon of dismay — when called upon to comment upon another radio person’s performance (what we in those days called a newscaster), this man, this man of substance and position, much admire by all, this man said, in his inimitable style and tone, that the work of aforesaid newscaster was, and I quote most carefully and precisely, he said that work was “masterful.”

Yes, “masterful” is what he said.

But that was in another country, and besides, the wretch is dead.


Well he’s been dead a while, so shouldn’t be too hard. Not much marrow left in the bones though…

OK, I’m just a dog, what am I missing?

Where’s those bones of Confucius?

You’ll have to share. Last seen, they were being chewed on by a pack of Rottweilers.:open_mouth: So just remember your manners, Scottie… eh?

If one misuses that word does that mean we are to use illiterally?