LOG IN / REGISTER




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

Previous: re: "Literally" - BruceinIthaca 10:24 am EDT 07/17/18
Next: re: "Literally" - BruceinIthaca 10:33 am EDT 07/18/18
Thread:

Privacy Policy


Time to render: 0.007283 seconds.