Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.032457 seconds.