the definition of LITERAL...

[mr. poopyhead]

people need to look up the definition of the word "literal" or "literally"... i was just in a meeting with some vendors and the guy said,
"... knowledge transfer is key.... one of our consultants will LITERALLY leave a piece of his brain behind!"
uhhh..... no thanks. a lobotomy is not neccessary...

and he also said,
"... my laptop literally had a meltdown last night!"
quick! get the geiger counter and the radiation suits!

anyone else have some funny examples of misusing the term "literal"?

edit: i found a good site, http://literally.barelyfitz.com/

[neon joe]

What I think is really funny, is that most of the time, when 'literally' is used incorrectly, what they really mean is 'figuratively'... kind of the opposite

[Devonavar]

Yeargh. This has been bugging me for a while. I should have guessed there'd be a website about it.

I've developed the habit of deliberately misunderstanding people when they use the word wrong.

[JazzJackRabbit]

When I read the topic I thought it would be about this kind of literals.

Still, funny site

[peteamer]

I've developed the habit of deliberately misunderstanding people when they use the word wrong.

... You too then.....

literalism n. insistence on a literal interpretation. literalist n

Pete

[Trip]

It's annoying when people literally don't bother to learn the English language well, but at the same time... some of us tend to not say what we mean just out of nature. That guy might have been thinking the word figuratively though he said literally. Correcting guys like us is pointless because we already know quite well what we should say. I figure it's akin to how doctors tend to write sloppily: I prefer to focus on the content of what I'm saying rather than how I'm communicating it.

[Trip]

At the same time... if someone corrects me and I wasn't aware of the mistake, I enjoy the trivia. I don't mind corrections, but I was just adding that some folks will speak incorrectly due to laziness or perhaps something else despite a firm grasp of the English language.

We're going to use gibberish, and there's rhetorically nothing you can do to improve that gibberish

[alexk]

Slate ran an article a few years back; the gist of it was that if it was good enough for Austen, Joyce, and Twain, it should be good enough for us:

http://www.slate.com/id/2129105/?nav=mpp

[Devonavar]

There's a difference between artistic license and general misuse by people who don't know what literally actually means.

It's not specific instances that bug me so much as the general tendency to misuse the word and the fact that it is so often used to mean the opposite of its denotive meaning.

[klankymen]

I'll tell you what these people are doing... they're not being stupid, it's called a stylistic device.

Simple as that. look up Hyperbole if you're interested.

[Trip]

Hyperbole is fine, but I agree that many truly have the definitions of literally and figuratively confused if they're even aware that such distinctions exist...

Anyone know the difference between I shall and I will? Thee and you is supposedly another distinction we've lost though you and y'all seems to be filling the void

This might be a result of mass culture in that the language is being simplified for the easy comprehension of lessers and as a result of a lack of respect for English since most who speak it are not English.

[qviri]

as a result of a lack of respect for English since most who speak it are not English.

Care to elaborate? There's more to learning a language's grammar than respect.

[Devonavar]

I'd be more inclined to blame the rise of television and radio, which allow aural and visual cues to substitute for complex grammar. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, though it does mean a loss for the written word.

IIRC, "shall" states intent, whereas "will" indicates that action is about to be taken. "Shall" is weaker than "will" because it includes the possibility that the intent will change. Is that about right, Trip?

[Trip]

Will expresses the voluntary choice of a person while shall expresses that a person must act or that an occurrence is inevitable. According to dictionary.com it was once used in the first person as I was taught by my English teacher though without regard to determination which seems to be the more important distinction. Dictionary.com also says it can express that a person "should" act which is different from expressing "must." Should seems to leave open the possibility for reconsideration while shall seems to not.

It's interesting; the grammar book I have doesn't mention that it is another form of "should" as dictionary.com does.

Care to elaborate? There's more to learning a language's grammar than respect.

I think a person who identifies as English, takes pride in being English, and wishes to preserve the cultural manifestations of the English would be more inclined to maintain the rules of the English language, including the quirks, than a foreigner. An Englishman would tend to form an irrational attachment to the English language and would likely be surrounded by other cultural manifestations that still reinforce the values and quirks of the language.

---

While I view tradition as important, my focus here is more that expression is made more difficult as a result of the loss of these complexities. It seems a bit awkward for a person to say "you all/all of you/y'all" and neither "I certainly will" or "I must" seems to express the determination of "I shall." A shade of meaning seems, at least to me, to be lost by its absence though I suppose in the land of the free, we are not enthusiastic about authority and determination.

I'm certainly no expert. I just recently bought a grammar book and a vocabulary book. I found English boring in school; I preferred history and science.

[mr. poopyhead]

I'd be more inclined to blame the rise of television and radio, which allow aural and visual cues to substitute for complex grammar. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, though it does mean a loss for the written word.

IIRC, "shall" states intent, whereas "will" indicates that action is about to be taken. "Shall" is weaker than "will" because it includes the possibility that the intent will change. Is that about right, Trip?

i blame MSN, the internet and a general apathy (i'd even say disdain in some cases...) towards education by kids these days. my friend is a high school english teacher and showed me some of the more humourous submissions she's recieved. paper after paper littered with slang and internet speak from start to finish.

when i was in elementary school they taught us the difference between formal and informal speech/writing in grade 5. that lesson is sorely lacking these days.

some say that standard english should be descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. as in, standard usage should reflect exactly that; the usage of the majority. language is constantly evolving. true... but it seems that the current trends in english are not driven by a desire or need for change, but by simple ignorance and lack of education.

this is a great site: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html

[jaganath]

I think a person who identifies as English, takes pride in being English, and wishes to preserve the cultural manifestations of the English would be more inclined to maintain the rules of the English language including the quirks than a foreigner. An Englishman would tend to form an irrational attachment to the English language I'd think.

Ironically, from what I can tell, it's actually the other way round; most native-born English tend to have awful spelling, grammar, etc, while a surprising number of total foreigners/immigrants have a splendid grasp of both spoken and written English. There is a similar thing in France where some immigrants have better French than the French themselves, to try and prove that they truly want to integrate and 'become' French. It's kind of like an immigrant who affects a liking for cricket, drinks tea and says "How do you do?" because that's what he thinks an Englishman is.


PS. mr poopyhead, for someone who criticises the current level of English of the youth, shouldn't you employ proper capitalistion? Glass houses etc...

[mr. poopyhead]

Ironically, from what I can tell, it's actually the other way round; most native-born English tend to have awful spelling, grammar, etc, while a surprising number of total foreigners/immigrants have a splendid grasp of both spoken and written English. There is a similar thing in France where some immigrants have better French than the French themselves, to try and prove that they truly want to integrate and 'become' French. It's kind of like an immigrant who affects a liking for cricket, drinks tea and says "How do you do?" because that's what he thinks an Englishman is.

i totally agree... internet forums are a perfect venue to witness this phenomenon. many posters here put my grasp of the english language to shame every day...

PS. mr poopyhead, for someone who criticises the current level of English of the youth, shouldn't you employ proper capitalistion? Glass houses etc...

i tend to put "internet forum" into the "informal english" section. hence, i take shortcuts that decrease typing time and do not render my posts completely incomprehensible. plus i have weak pinky fingers,

but i assure you, i do not disregard capitilization in a more formal setting like work. if you would like to see some of my reports, i'd gladly send you a copy,

if it really is such an eyesore to the community, i can start capitalizing though. i'm open to constructive criticism...

[Trip]

Heh, I hadn't thought of that.

We have a similar phenomenon in America (as does most any nation I'm sure) where aspiring immigrants watch American Idol and eat McDonalds. They also seem to dress in MTV style clothes. I guess that is how much of America is perhaps, but that's sharply contrasted with the values of my community at least. Life imitating TV

I was just thinking of the Rhodesians who used to be known as being "more British than the British." I guess nationalism is strongest when it has something to define itself against such as the British in southern Africa.

Anyway, what Devonavar said about the written word being replaced by "allow aural and visual cues to substitute for complex grammar" is a good point which I forgot to laud. So now I'm lauding: good point. However, I think it's worth pointing out that while this is not necessarily a bad development in theory, the current manifestation is bad. TV and radio jump from topic to topic and disrupt concentration. Such media can not only lead to a weaker ability to focus but also be used to manipulate viewers/listeners. The TV and radio have more control over the viewer than does the book.

Also... is it not more difficult to think in sounds and pictures than with words? A mind lacking a word to represent a particular shade of meaning would seem to have more difficulty perceiving or at least maneuvering with the shade of meaning.

[Devonavar]

Hmm, I guess I had the shall/will reversed. Strange though, my paradigm phrase for "shall": "I think I shall" definitely carries a connotation of free will rather than forced choice. Guess I haven't looked into it deeply enough.

@Mr. Poopyhead (Yes, I will insist on capitalizing your name.)

Why should language evolve according to "a desire or need for change"? I don't think this has ever been the case, has it?

@Trip:

Now you need to explain why jumping rapidly from topic to topic is bad. There are certainly situations where the ability to concentrate is highly useful, but I'm not sure whether it's inherently better. I have to say that my intense ability to focus sometimes makes it hard for me to follow general conversation, and it's nearly impossible for me to split my focus like some people can. I think a certain level of ADD may be helpful in the world we live in. I have no basis for judging whether this is a good thing — that's morally good — or not.

I would also dispute your claim that weaker focus necessarily means one is more easily manipulated. I think it's a matter of what you're susceptible to. Put in the terms you use, I think a book potentially has far more "control" over the reader than mass media, especially if that reader is good at concentrating and is following the argument. For someone like me, it takes an in-depth, written argument — a book — to change my mind and influence my thinking.

On the other hand, those without the attention span for reading are probably more easily swayed by the fast-paced flow of radio and TV. Perhaps this just comes down to what one is more used to gleaning information from?

Regarding thought in sound and pictures vs. thought in words:

I think what you're getting at is that abstract thought is less articulate in sounds and pictures than in words. To me, that doesn't cover the full range of meaning for thought, though.

I would say that thinking in sounds and pictures feels more natural for many people — hence the appeal of mass media — but it is a different kind of thought — more immediate and impressionistic than abstract thought. If you're trying to express something concrete and emotive, sounds and pictures will almost always give you a clearer image than words. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Try expressing the floorplan of your house to someone in words. If you manage it at all, it will take many paragraphs. Show someone a blueprint, and they will get it immediately.

I could go on, but I think my point is made: It depends what thoughts you are trying to express. Complex grammar and a wide vocabulary are invaluable for thinking in abstract and theoretical work, but nothing beats direct sensory communication for conveying concrete information.

[Trip]

Late response, I know.

Haha, this is a tough discussion. I'll see if I can put up a decent reply, but I think you might have me.