&gt;<i>And also let us not forget that dictionaries are not authoritative sources for word definitions of living languages, they are historical records.</i><p>&gt;<i>Words mean whatever their users intend.</i><p>Words mean whatever MOST users intend, sure. But that&#x27;s not entirely arbitrary, and doesn&#x27;t mean there&#x27;s not also abuse.<p>E.g. there are also lots of of people who genuinely can&#x27;t tell &quot;their&quot; from &quot;they&#x27;re&quot;. The English language isn&#x27;t gonna change anytime soon to accommodate their usage of it.<p>&gt;<i>My favourite recent example of this is &#x27;literally&#x27; which once meant &quot;actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy&quot; and has now come to also mean it&#x27;s direct opposite: &quot;in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually&quot;.</i><p>Yeah, that use has been included in dictionaries for a while -- and the use of &quot;literally&quot; to mean &quot;virtually&quot; goes back to even before Shakespeare.<p>In general modern dictionaries stay well on top of language trends. If there&#x27;s a word usage that&#x27;s not included yet, it&#x27;s probably either a fad or too recent and constrained to deserve an entry (like &quot;putting the p.... on the chainwax&quot;).<p>Another classic example, &quot;awful&quot; is said to originally mean &quot;worthy of awe&quot; back in the day...