Good heavens, the state of the English language! It’s enough to make a grammarian spontaneously combust and a lexicographer weep tears of pure, unadulterated despair. In a legal case that has baffled lawyers, amused linguists, and left dictionary publishers reaching for their thesauruses, a local man is suing the Oxford English Dictionary for… wait for it… defining “literally” as “figuratively.”

Yes, you read that right. Barnaby Bookworm, a self-proclaimed “guardian of grammatical integrity” and a man who apparently takes his dictionaries very seriously, has launched a legal battle against the OED, claiming that their definition of “literally” is “literally” the worst thing to happen to the English language since the invention of text-speak.

“It’s an outrage!” Barnaby sputtered, brandishing a well-worn copy of the OED with the offending definition circled in red ink. “The word ‘literally’ means ‘in a literal manner or sense; exactly.’ It does NOT mean ‘figuratively,’ which means ‘in a way that involves using words or phrases with a meaning that is different from the basic or literal one.’ It’s a travesty, a linguistic abomination, a crime against the very fabric of the English language!”

Barnaby’s lawsuit, filed in a courtroom that was reportedly filled with dictionaries stacked precariously like literary Jenga towers, demands that the OED issue a public apology, revise their definition of “literally,” and provide him with a lifetime supply of thesauruses (presumably to compensate for the emotional distress caused by the dictionary’s “grammatical inaccuracy”).

The OED, however, remains unmoved. “Our definition of ‘literally’ reflects the evolving nature of language,” declared a spokesperson for the esteemed dictionary publisher, who, ironically, spoke in a rather literal manner. “Language is a living, breathing entity, constantly changing and adapting to the needs of its users. The word ‘literally’ has been used in a figurative sense for centuries, and our definition simply reflects this common usage.”

The case has sparked a heated debate among linguists, grammarians, and those who simply enjoy a good argument about the finer points of the English language.

“This is ridiculous!” exclaimed Professor Priscilla Pedantic, a renowned linguist and author of the bestselling book “The Joys of Grammar: A Celebration of Semicolons and Subjunctive Clauses.” “The word ‘literally’ has a clear and precise meaning, and to suggest that it can be used interchangeably with ‘figuratively’ is an insult to the very foundations of linguistic integrity!”

Others, however, have expressed sympathy for Barnaby’s cause. “I understand his frustration,” admitted Dr. Quentin Quibble, a self-proclaimed “grammar enthusiast” and author of the controversial book “The Case for Linguistic Anarchy.” “The misuse of ‘literally’ is a pet peeve of mine. It’s like using a hammer to eat soup – it’s simply not the right tool for the job.”

The case continues to make its way through the legal system, with experts debating the finer points of grammar and the evolution of language. Whether Barnaby will succeed in his quest to restore the “literal” meaning of “literally” remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: this case has sparked a much-needed conversation about the importance of linguistic precision… and the dangers of taking dictionaries too literally.