Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Chicago thoughts | |
| Posted by: ARReith1982 10:27 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| Does anyone think that Chicago will close or lose business because of it being in the news with, literally, killing members of the cast? I, for one, hope an investigation leads to justice for those afflicted. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Chicago thoughts | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 01:18 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 01:08 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: Chicago thoughts - ARReith1982 10:27 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| To answer the question you posed, it's hard to imagine the Jeff Loeffelholz tragedy has affected ''Chicago's'' financial fortunes at all. Jeff died on June 29. BroadwayWorld.com posted the news on July 5. The N.Y. Post reported on July 6 that ''Chicago's'' producers were ''devastated'' by Jeff's death and had hired an attorney, Judd Bernstein, to conduct ''an exhaustive investigation'' into the allegations of bullying. Since then, Justice for Jeff, a blog created by his fans, has posted accounts by a few ''Chicago'' alumni recalling their backstage experiences. And there's been chatter on this board and BroadwayWorld's message board, but as for ''being in the news,'' has it? Playbill.com finally posted a report on July 11, recapping old news, and followed the next day with an appreciation of Jeff. It's July 16. The death of this over 20-year Broadway veteran (and the probe) still goes unreported at Broadway.com and TheaterMania. More surprisingly and more concerningly, the same can be said of the N.Y. Times, Variety, the Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com, etc. Meantime, you can glimpse Jeff's comic artistry and Michael Tidd's in this Dangerous Duets video, spoofing Trevor Nunn's shows. Earlier that year (1993), Jeff and Michael won the MAC Award for Musical Comedy, and you can see why in this funny footage. |
|
| Link | Dangerous Duets: 1993 George Abbott Awards |
| reply to this message | |
| "Literally" | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 10:33 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: Chicago thoughts - ARReith1982 10:27 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| That doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: ARReith1982 11:53 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: "Literally" - MockingbirdGirl 10:33 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not asking for a grammar lesson. (and I know what it means) But when bullying by an organization is leading to death of people - there is a responsibility that has to be accounted for. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Last Edit: StanS 02:00 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| Posted by: StanS 01:59 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - ARReith1982 11:53 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Wrong again. The lesson would be in semantics, not grammar. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Can we stop already????? | |
| Posted by: ARReith1982 12:41 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - StanS 01:59 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Stop. Just stop already. You know what I mean. And, if we're saying that the management of CHICAGO bullied cast members which led to their deaths... then, "literally" these persons are responsible. I asked for a simple opinion-based question. I didn't ask for a lecture on the use of a word. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Can we stop already????? | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 08:26 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
| In reply to: Can we stop already????? - ARReith1982 12:41 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| The problem is that you question assumes facts that have not been established, and the word "literally" is part of that. That word seems to be part of an assertion that the behavior in rehearsal directly led to the suicide. This of course is not certain. And this may have been a frustrating exchange but it was fruitful. I think acknowledging that the question was "opinion-based" rather than "fact-based" will help the discussion. What people objected to was that the idea that the bullying led to the death was presented as fact rather than opinion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 10:01 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: "Literally" - MockingbirdGirl 10:33 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, now it does. I listened to the "Hidden Brain" podcast on language and John McWhorter, the noted linguist at Columbia University, explained that the word is now an example of a contronym--a word that has two opposite meanings. Popular usage ultimately determines meaning. I certainly have always thought "literally" was not acceptable as an intensifier or qualifier, but, per McWhorter (who is a smart scholar), it now is. Usage outweighs origin or prescription. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: Budinsky 07:32 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - BruceinIthaca 10:01 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| I have yet to understand how presumably intelligent people take the position that if a word is consistently used incorrectly by enough people that the word's meaning needs to be bent to accommodate that incorrect usage. I would think that they'd take the opposite tack, acting as a bulwark to defend the language. I'm not familiar with the work of McWhorter and I'm not about to remedy that. Apparently, he's "a smart scholar." Just out of curiosity: could you provide me with an example of a stupid one? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 10:20 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - Budinsky 07:32 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'm in academia--the list of "stupid scholars" is legion, trust me. Language changes over time--"hussy" used to mean "housewife." So, if people today use it to mean something derogatory about a woman, they are "wrong"? Rules about split infinitives and not ending sentences with prepositions are vestiges of eras when rules for classical languages (which are highly inflected) were imposed on non-inflected languages (like English, which has some inflection, but not in as determinative way as Greek and Latin). Too bad you proudly assert you have no plans to "remedy" your ignorance. Linguistics, even at its most basic and less technical level, is fascinating and gives insight into language change. But do try to be a "bulwark" against change--it's a losing battle. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: Budinsky 09:07 am EDT 07/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - BruceinIthaca 10:20 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Sarcasm notwithstanding, you seem to suggest that "change" is synonymous with "progress." I don't subscribe to that notion. I didn't "proudly assert" anything. Whether you're among the "legion" you claim, I know not. But I'd classify you as among the presumptuous. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 10:21 am EDT 07/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - Budinsky 09:07 am EDT 07/18/18 | |
|
|
|
| Not presumptuous...just educated. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: davei2000 12:20 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - BruceinIthaca 10:01 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| And what's John McWhorter's opinion on the soundtrack/cast album debate? Just so we can settle that one too... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: Seth Christenfeld (tabula-rasa@verizon.net) 12:47 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - davei2000 12:20 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Presumably "cast album," as he's an avid theatre fan and often plays excerpts from obscure cast albums on his own podcast (Slate's Lexicon Valley) and refers to them as such. Seth, avid listener thereof |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: davei2000 01:14 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - Seth Christenfeld 12:47 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| I know the guy's work (and once saw him at a Marx Bros fringe show), so I'm not surprised, but if he says Usage outweighs origin or prescription I'd presume he goes the other way....I'll bet he tries to use "literally" in its prescriptive sense too. The question is whether it's worth correcting others who don't. I don't think his opinion is going to settle that one... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 10:24 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - davei2000 01:14 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| In the podcast I heard, he acknowledges the personal wincing he experiences over certain linguistic "errors" (i.e. deviations from prescribed usage), but comes down on the side of intelligibility--if we known what a person is trying to convey when they use "literally" to mean "deeply" or "intensely," why waste time or be rude enough to "correct" them. He sees such moves as a kind of snobbery and elitism. Whether you agree with that is entirely your business. I'd not base an entire argument on one scholar, but I also think the policing of language as is done, for example, in France to maintain a standard of "purity" is, well, silly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 11:08 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - BruceinIthaca 10:24 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Not to open a can of worms, but, if we're going down the path different from the idea that words mean specific things, how do we know that we know what the person was trying to convey without further questioning to ascertain their meaning when they are using incorrect or imprecise language? Here's an example from ATC's favorite topic: Someone starts asking questions about the "HELLO, DOLLY! soundtrack," and another person, naturally, starts talking about Barbra Streisand and Michael Crawford and the first person is mystified because he wanted to know something about Bette Midler and Gavin Creel. When a question is asked about a soundtrack, there shouldn't need be any further clarification unless there is legitimately more than one soundtrack of the title that is being asked about (ANNIE, GYPSY, etc.). And that's because the word "soundtrack" means something specific and the original questioner was using it incorrectly. When we have words that have specific meanings, it's awkward and weird not to use them. "Look at that big flowering plant with branches and a trunk...shady plant! Isn't that pretty?" "Um...do you mean that 'tree?'" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 10:33 am EDT 07/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - JereNYC 11:08 am EDT 07/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| You raise a fair point, which is why usage and context matter. It is true that written language is often comparatively poor in clarifying meaning, simply because it is unidirectional (you can't say, as a follow-up, at least not usually at the moment of the person's writing, "do you mean 'actual' or 'intensely'?) and tone can be difficult to make nuanced in print (obviously, great writers can, but not us lesser mortals writing on a chat board). I would suggest, at the risk of being presumptuous, that all words are symbols, agreed to by a particular speech community in a given or context, not the things themselves (this is what some linguists call "the referential fallacy"). Your example of "tree" is a good one. It may be that in some languages there is no word that corresponds exactly to our English word "tree" (say, in a place where there may not be trees) or many different words for variations of the category we call tree. It's not quite the "Eskimos have 100 words for snow" (they do not, and there are multiple languages spoken by northern people, most of whom do not use the word Eskimo to identify their heritage or culture), but that the group using the word determines its meanings. You can rail against it (not, "literally," you, JereNYC, bot "one," the "on" in French), but usage will always win out in everyday culture. Prescriptivists (as they are known) can fuss and fume--that is their right. I still prefer the distinction between "literal" and "figurative" myself, but as someone who is teaching Millennials, it is useful for me to be aware that the distinction may not be meaningful or natural for them. I can give them the tools to make the distinction, as there will be contexts in which it will be useful (if they interview for a job with Budinsky, God help them), but to correct them in class discussion or a conversation doesn't help move education. I don't think all change is progress--all I have to do is look at the White House and the general state of our government to know that. But I also don't assume that people who don't follow rules I was taught are necessarily ignorant or stupid. Call me presumptuous. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Literally... | |
| Posted by: singleticket 10:21 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - BruceinIthaca 10:01 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Interesting, yes I've been reading similar things from linguists who literally say that at a certain point usage overtakes original meaning, literally. I know quite a few Brits who are real abusers of this term, "LIT-RALLY". I think they like it because it's a punctuator of their conversational point and it's dramatic. But is it more annoying than those people who pause for a dramatic buildup before finishing their point or worse those dreadful posters on ATC who put an ellipsis in their subject line? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Literally... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:05 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: Literally... - singleticket 10:21 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Sorry! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:00 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
| In reply to: "Literally" - MockingbirdGirl 10:33 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| I think in this case, that actually is a fair use of the word, if you choose to believe the accounts that accuse the show of firing two cast members in a way that was causally linked with their deaths. They are actually, literally, killing people (allegedly), and the debate is whether it's murder or manslaughter. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Last Edit: mikem 01:13 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| Posted by: mikem 01:11 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - Singapore/Fling 11:00 pm EDT 07/15/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not looking to get too wrapped up in this, but Brian Spitulnik's essay, which was written several years ago, describes that the second person did not die until almost three years after the firing, and it's not clear whether his drowning was an accident or suicide. Spitulnik also implies that person may have had an addiction issue that led to his firing, and it's hard to know whether that might have played a role in the factors that led to his death. Firing by FedEx is pretty awful, but it's not clear that there's any relationship between that action and that person's death. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:11 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - mikem 01:11 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Fedex or something similar is always part of firing. A written notice of firing has to be given both to the artist and the agent - and you have to have proof this was received. Fedex gives you a time sensitive delivery proof - as would a messenger service. On could do this in person - but very few want to do this. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: davei2000 12:24 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - NewtonUK 07:11 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| On[e] could do this in person - but very few want to do this. Isn't that the point? No one wants to do it in person - but nonetheless it's standard in business... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:39 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - NewtonUK 07:11 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, Fedex. Several years ago I had ordered something from some online company. It was supposed to have been delivered in a day or two. When several days went by and I hadn't received it, I called and I was told it had been delivered and signed for. After several more days when they simply couldn't locate it and they more than once insisted to me that it had been delivered and signed for, they found it had been delivered and, I guess, signed for in a Kinko's about a mile away from my apartment. And they wanted me to go pick it up there. I hope that no one is trusting FedEx's proofs of delivery for anything. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: Ann 08:51 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - AlanScott 08:39 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Happened to me recently, too. It's an option when something is to be delivered to deliver it a FedEx/Kinko's instead of the personal address. Somehow, they don't always get it right. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:51 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - Ann 08:51 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Do you mean they always have the option to deliver the package to Kinko's instead of to the addressee and then to say they've delivered it to you? And that you've signed for it? Or do you mean that the sender has the option to say FedEx can do it? I was trying to search online about this but nothing much was coming up. Either way, it's crazy, and I'm amazed that people and companies use them. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: Ann 05:10 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - AlanScott 04:51 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| I think they do this after an attempt to deliver. But this is the first time I've had it happen, and since I've been pretty much housebound, I'm sure I was here and there was no notice that they tried to deliver. Maybe they've changed a policy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| FedEx deliveries | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:32 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - Ann 05:10 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| I worked for a paper company as an inside salesman for 31 years and probably sent at least a dozen packages every week to customers, generally via either UPS or FedEx. Here's how it works: the sender fills out a form to be attached in a sleeve to each package and at the same time gets a tracking number for each package. The attached form indicates the type of service desired -- there are something like 10 to 15 delivery options to chose from, e.g., delivery by 10:00 AM, delivery by 5:00 PM, delivery with signature required, delivery without a signature, etc. If a signature is not required, the delivery guy is supposed to just leave the package at the door. If a signature is required and can not be obtained, the driver brings it back to his warehouse. If the sender's service option requires it, the driver must leave a notice for the recipient that the package could not be delivered and can be picked up at his warehouse. In addition after every delivery attempt (successful or otherwise), the driver records this information on his delivery device (it's like a smartphone). It was my responsibility as the sender to track each package to make sure it was successfully delivered. In general UPS and FedEx are pretty efficient and reliable -- far better than the US Postal Service, which I rarely used. I must have sent over 20,000 packages over the last 31 years -- I would guess that 95% of them were delivered without incident. Of course, there were a few times when I got a driver who was either careless or stupid. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: FedEx deliveries | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:16 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: FedEx deliveries - BroadwayTonyJ 06:32 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| It's funny but I find USPS very reliable. I know that many don't. Maybe the delivery people in my neighborhood are just very good. The one thing I've gotten annoyed about is that when you're sending something, they usually don't tell you about the media mail option, you have to know to ask about it. But in terms of deliveries, I've been happy with them. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:17 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - Ann 05:10 pm EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, similarly, I was probably here when they supposedly tried to deliver it, and there was also no notice. This was several years ago, but I guess it's still going on. I wonder how common it is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Literally" | |
| Posted by: Quicheo 10:55 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
| In reply to: re: "Literally" - Ann 08:51 am EDT 07/16/18 | |
|
|
|
| To join the FedEx pile on: I live in a university town--the largest university in our admittedly rural state. FedEx closed all of its offices here several years ago for budget reasons which means if a package arrives and needs to be signed for while I'm at work, I need to drive 40 miles away to the nearest office. The nearest Kinko's is 60 miles away, so that's not a better option. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.100461 seconds.