Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.009446 seconds.