tao_: English language attacked from all sides

Graham (

tao_) wrote,
@ 2007-02-01 12:56:00

English language attacked from all sides
Two brilliant examples of 'literally' abuse seen within a half hour.

Blurb for Nintendo DS version of 'Age of Empires': "Dominance of the known world is literally at your fingertips!" (Finally!)

...and in the Guardian, the less spectacular but still befuddling quote from the assistant chief constable of West Midlands on today's terror arrests. "We are literally at the foothills of what is a very, very major investigation."

Maybe we should just change the meaning of the word to what everyone seems to think it means.

(Post a new comment)

proctologiste
2007-02-01 01:26 pm UTC (link)

Yes, that's actually how it works.

Language changes over time. And with grammar and pronounciation, even word meanings morph to new directions. Language is organic and ever-changing, and attempting to fit it into molds isn't going to work.

The OED does it right, once a definition becomes pervalent enough, they just add it! Just like you said, except you seemed to regard the idea as absurd.

[Yes, I'm a linguist (well, in training), and yes, we don't like prescriptivists.]

P.S. Literally has now acquired the ability to be an intensifier. Why not rejoice at the richness of the English language? Can you honestly say that that useage made the sentences literally less comprehensible?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

amuchmoreexotic
2007-02-01 02:28 pm UTC (link)

If "literally" is eventually accepted as a sort of synonym for "metaphorically", as well as also meaning the exact opposite, then it will just make the word unusable because you can't use it to communicate anything to a general audience. See also "disinterested" and "enormity". Words dying of misuse removes richness and precision from the language.

I've never understood this big thing linguists have about not being "prescriptivist". You don't get virologists going "Yes, that's actually how it works. You shared body fluids with a partner and contracted the HIV virus, which will now mutate to resist treatment. I'm a virologist (by training) and yes, we don't like people who practise safe sex. Why are you so upset? Why not rejoice at the richness of the venereal ecosystem?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

proctologiste
2007-02-01 04:40 pm UTC (link)

The thing about virologists is that they have a pretty easy way to define things as "bad" versus "good".

With language, people come out all the time to claim opposite things. As soon as you have some metric about which language changes are beneficial and which aren't, your point would be completely valid, for your reasoning is correct.

The meaning used here isn't "metaphorically" it's closer to "really" or "totally".

And the deal with "prescriptivists" is not that linguists are against dictating some standard of comprehensibility (I don't think "u" as a replacement for "you" is appropriate in a research paper, for example) when needed. It's that different people dictate different values, one person's "attack on the X language" is another person's regular way of talking.

BTW, there are many cases where words have had meaning drift, even made to mean something nearly their opposite over the centuries. And perhaps that was "bad", but most modern English speakers have no idea which words underwent that process, so however bad it was, it isn't enough to affect the comprehensibility of our language.

(Oh, and yes, my response was rather knee jerk in that any "attack on X language" makes my blood boil, and I probably should have not worded it in such a condescending fashion. Not attempting to insult people's intelligence, just their values and beliefs in regards to the superiority of one way of speaking versus another.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

themezzanine
2007-02-01 06:37 pm UTC (link)

But then "really" and "totally" have different meanings, which is why they both exist. I'd say that the first example is actually a play on words and "literally" is intended to have its dictionary meaning, i.e. the game, which you play with your fingers, puts you really and actually in charge of the conquest of the world, such is its verisimilitude. The second example is just a load of old crap and I'm really not sure what the guy was trying to say.

The other problem is that "literally" is only sometimes used as an intensifier - other times, as

amuchmoreexotic mentioned, it's used to mean "metaphorically" or, as the comedian David Cross quoted in a routine once, "virtually" or "almost" ("Dude, it was so funny, I literally shit my pants." "Ew."). I'm all for the evolution of language but if a word's going to change its meaning I'd like to be clear on what the new meaning is going to be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	bergenboi 2007-02-01 06:55 pm UTC (link)
	So... as a linguist you basically just sit back and watch what was going happen anyways, then write a paper about it that gets published and pretty much only read by other linguists? Is that fairly accurate? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

proctologiste
2007-02-01 08:42 pm UTC (link)

Pretty much. We're mildly more respectable than Economists (who actually try to predict things) :>

The science is currently towards the end of its descriptive stage, it's relatively young. Physicists spent several centuries doing nothing but describing things (and when they tried to predict things they were usually wrong, or only right in a limited sense). Linguistics is developing much much faster that the physical sciences have (and not in the weird way psychology has). Though that isn't a virtue of Linguistics, rather a virtue of Modernity.

When will linguists create the equivalent of Nuclear Reactors and Space Shuttles? I don't know. But I think doing things like describing near-extinct languages, studying speech disabilities, translating, analyzing speech for court cases, deciphering ancient languages, and all kinds of other wholly descriptive occupations are more than worthwhile until then.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2007-02-01 03:28 pm UTC (link)
	You are litrerally an idiot (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2007-02-01 02:20 pm UTC (link)
	i'm virtually disgusted (Reply to this)

	utilitygeek 2007-02-01 02:39 pm UTC (link)
	At least the way they are using it is very unique. Literally. shudder (Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2007-02-01 02:49 pm UTC (link)

I'm an idiot (no training required) but I was under the impression that an evolutionary step was one which occured when a change was helpful to a species or group. It is metaphorically beyond me to see how losing the precise use of the word "literally" could in any way be described as "useful".

I'm all for the language changing; I myself invented the word "glebospot". It's a word you can use to describe someone who comments on matters that they know nothing about.

Jasper "glebospot" Goodballoon

www.goodballoon.blogspot.com

(Reply to this)(Thread)

proctologiste
2007-02-01 04:50 pm UTC (link)

An evolutionary step is any step. As I say above, who decides what is a good one or a bad one? In the animal world, survival is the ultimate validator of any evolutionary step.

Should survival be the criteria for linguistic matters? I don't know. As soon as some reliable way to define and analyze the long-term benefits and negative effects of some linguistic change, any deviation from one of the "right" paths can be safely condemned as an atrocity against any creature capable of uttering a sentence.

But until then, the OED is not word from God, it just describes usage.

(And in case it isn't obvious, I'm not saying that using "literally" in that way is either good or bad. That use is comprehensible to me, and that's as much of a value judgment as I'm willing to give.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2007-02-01 05:57 pm UTC (link)
	I am now nodding whilst pretending to comprehend the points being put forward. I will now utter something noncommital like, "Well, of course I can see both sides of the argument.", make my excuses and leave so I can get home for the Dawson's Creek repeats on Five US. Jasper Goodballoon (Reply to this)(Parent)

	savantesque 2007-02-01 03:50 pm UTC (link)
	My best friend always credits Toby Anstis with his favourite mis-use of the word 'literally'. Apparently he once said to Otis the Aardvark "you are literally getting on my nerves." (Reply to this)(Thread)

	harveyjames 2007-02-01 06:27 pm UTC (link)
	LOL (Reply to this)(Parent)

	hehadvanished 2007-02-02 12:54 am UTC (link)
	The "Age of Empires" use is actually correct. The DS has a touch-sensitive screen, and you use your fingers to play the game. Sorry to ruin the fun. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	harveyjames 2007-02-02 10:22 am UTC (link)
	So the game really grants you dominance of the known world?? Amazing! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2007-02-03 03:54 am UTC (link)
	ah, mr linehan, you should get an mbe or some such for your services to grammar, I love talking to people who disrupt stories by recounting 'I literally died', then why the fuck are still telling me this dull story? lovin' the site as per usual lorcs aka jimmny homunculus (Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…