The problem is that we try to defend you, @MerriamWebster, by correcting incorrect usage, but you eventually undermine our support by saying: "If people are wrong long enough, then we give in and make them right." (See, for example, how "literally" now also means "figuratively.")

@JeffersRoad It’s not “giving in,” it’s documenting how people actually use the language. Dictionaries define the breadth of the language, and not simply the elegant parts at the top.

@MerriamWebster I understand your reasoning, but where does it end? If enough people say down means up and alive means dead, will @MerriamWebster say, "Well, that's how people actually use the language"? Or, as with "could care less," folks actually mean the opposite but don't recognize it?

@JeffersRoad @MerriamWebster Yes, they should document that, because that is the most useful information for someone who hears a word and wants to know what the speaker meant by it. You are free to start a Dictionary of Proper English as It Should Be According to JeffersRoad, if you wish.

@DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster Again, I understand the reasoning, but think about what you're saying: If enough people say down means up and alive means dead, then when I consult the dictionary, it tells me that foolish actually means wise. If that's helpful to you or others, so be it.

@JeffersRoad @MerriamWebster Yes, it is well known that the meanings of words often change significantly over time. Dictionaries helpfully document those changes so that people who don’t know can look up the current meanings.

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster Are you aware of the history of the word “bad” and how it came to mean “good” in certain contexts? Should the dictionary not include good as a definition of bad?

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster You can repost this again and again but you actually don’t understand the reasoning. That’s the problem.

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster Exactly. if that’s how the majority used the language, then that’s how the language is to be defined. we’re not speaking french here

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster yes exactly, if enough people starts using down with other meaning than the current one, in the future it'll be on the dictionary. that's exactly how languages and dictionary works and i'm very proud of you for understanding it

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster Hey quick question for you bud: what’s the definition of “dick” to you?

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster If people are using words in a certain way and you don't get it, you check the dictionary. That's what it's for. It's not a rulebook and I think you know that, so expecting w dictionary to "hold the line" is antithetical to its purpose

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster You don't understand the reasoning. "Enough people using a word to mean something" is what language is.

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster Well yeah, it IS helpful. Because if you're confused because you keep hearing people use words in ways that don't make sense, then you consult the dictionary and it says "This word means X, but people also use it to mean Y," wouldn't that clear it up?

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster I don't understand what you're not getting about this. If enough people say down means up, then yes it should be documented. There would be a reason for the change. Language is always changing. Why aren't you decrying the fact that we don't call books bec, for example?

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster Don't you think that if enough people are saying down is up and dead is alive, to the point that the dictionary has included it, the problem is that you have to CATCH ON or you'll be left behind? Words weren't set in stone the moment you were born, things evolve and so should you

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster That's how words work. I'm really sorry you weren't aware of that.

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster Yes, that's how all words work. Semantic shifts aren't new. You may think they're terrible but I think they're terrific (two words that both used to mean 'inspires terror') en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_…

@JeffersRoad @DoobLontonder @MerriamWebster you do realize that there are many words that have opposite meanings, right? and dictionaries should document both meanings, as they currently do. if a word is used for two different things, both meanings should be in the dictionary. I don’t think that’s controversial