Literally?!

[Fino]

That doesn’t make sense, though, if you think about it. If literally now also means figuratively, then “literally” cancels itself out. It means two opposing things, so therefore it means nothing. How would we know if a person is speaking literally or figuratively when they use the word “literally” e.g. if someone says that her head literally feels like it’s about to explode, the ambiguity of “literally” neutralizes all sense from the sentence: does she actually/literally feel like her head is about to explode, or is she just speaking figuratively and using hyperbole to make a point? Does she mean literally as in literally or literally as in figuratively? Should we smile or rush her to a hospital?

If the word “fork” began to be misused to mean either a fork or a spoon, then the word “spoon” wouldn’t need to exist, and the new word “fork” wouldn’t make sense.

“Would you like a fork?”
“Yes.”
“The fork that has prongs or the fork that has the oval at the end?”
“The oval one.”

If you want a fork, you ask for a fork. If you want a spoon, you ask for a spoon. You wouldn’t ask for a fork meaning a spoon. Likewise, you wouldn’t say literally if you meant figuratively—you’d just say figuratively.

Two words that mean two different things can’t be combined without causing confusion and requiring disambiguation before it can be understood. I also think that widespread misuse should most of the time not be grounds for officially changing the meaning of the word. It encourages the degradation of language and screws up the etymological anatomy of words.

As with many words, it becomes a question of context. It may also be a question of formal vs colloquial.

 

[Fino]

The one that gets me is 'kind of.' This is used wayyy too much and often inappropiately. It's kind of sad, funny, hard, etc. What does this even mean? Something is sad or it isn't sad, funny or it isn't funny. How can it be 'kind of' funny?

All examples given are subject to gradation, and I believe "kind of" refers to it being on the lower end of the scale.

 

[tree]

1: to a moderate degree : somewhat it's kind of late to begin
2 : in a way that approximates : more or less kind of sneaked up on us
Definition of KIND OF

1. kind of(Adverb)
   
   Slightly; somewhat; sort of.
   
   
   Origin: From a reanalysis "kind of" in a phrase such as "a kind of merry dance" from noun ("kind") and preposition ("of") from the prepositional phrase "of merry dance" to adverb modifying "merry".
   
   What does kind of mean?
   
   
   

 

[Judge]

As with many words, it becomes a question of context. It may also be a question of formal vs colloquial.

Reminds me of that point in time in the early 80s when corporate minds officially informed us that it was better to communicate in writing in a colloquial manner than to stick to "old world" business formality. For some it was actually quite a difficult transition.


"With reference to the captioned, please be advised....."

To:

"Hi, Bob. I wanted to talk to you about..... "

 

[Raphael Outcast]

Two words that mean two different things can’t be combined without causing confusion and requiring disambiguation before it can be understood. I also think that widespread misuse should most of the time not be grounds for officially changing the meaning of a word. It encourages the degradation of language and screws up the etymological anatomy of words.

No, hang on.

It's late in the evening (by my standards) but language changes over time, and words do change their meaning.

If you go to some parts of rural England and ask, "Will X happen?" you may receive the answer: "I doubt." Which means, yes X will happen for certain. In this instance, although I've never read anything to confirm my hypothesis, I believe the explanation is that "I doubt" is actually short for, "I doubt not."

As in, "I do not doubt that it will happen." Except in briefer and more Shakespearean terms. Like "I know not" or "I see not": "I doubt not."

On the other hand in most parts of England you can receive the answer, "Doubt it!" which is not (as it appears) an instruction but is short for, "I doubt it!" in other words X is quite unlikely to be about to happen.

If you look up the derivation of a word in a decent dictionary, such as Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary, or even the full 13-volume Oxford English Dictionary if you happen to have it lying around, it can be quite amazing how the meaning of a word has evolved and come very far from where it began.

And people have been navigating this ambiguity of words for a long time. And some poetry, and some humour, depends for its effect on double meaning, and that's a very old phenomenon. I once taught Latin, and the Romans had this.

And you can read books by Geza Vermes and see how different interpretations of early translations of the Bible from its original Aramaic language into ancient Greek hinge upon the fact those ancient Greek translators were themselves bamboozled by different possible meanings in the original Aramaic dialect they were endeavouring to translate.

In the Harry Potter books it's perfectly O.K. for the young people to describe an adverse situation as a "bummer". But when I was at school (not that I attended Hogwarts as such), a bummer was a man who engaged in homosexual acts of sodomy, i.e. a man that did other mens' bums, and this would not have been acceptable language in a children's story!

So I'm not sure language ever does actually degrade. It just morphs. The human race has been mangling language clumsily for thousands of years, and it ain't dead yet!

And the etymological anatomy of a lot of words is like a lot of our family trees: full of shady secrets and improbable twists.

So we can afford to be a bit relaxed about this, perhaps.

But obviously I would be in favour of eugenics to eliminate anyone who doesn't know how and where to use an apostrophe. No, this latter comment is not meant 100% seriously, please do not report me to the Political Correctness Police! Like I said, it's late in the evening, if you know what I mean?

 

[Raphael Outcast]

"old world" business formality

Yes and why oh why did they do away with, "Dear Sir, I am in receipt of yours of the 17th ult., and would beg to advise..."?

My father was still writing letters like that until he sold up and retired, less than 20 years ago. "Assuring you of our best attention at all times, yours sincerely, ..."

These days you're damned lucky if the reply even specifies which letter it's replying to!

"Dear Raphael (even though you are not on first-name terms, grrr!), Thank you for your recent letter..."

This is not good enough! Can't they even be bothered to look at the date you put at the top of your letter?! Can they actually even read?!

I think maybe I should just finish my wine and go to bed, now.

 

[Judge]

Yes and why oh why did they do away with, "Dear Sir, I am in receipt of yours of the 17th ult., and would beg to advise..."?

My father was still writing letters like that until he sold up and retired, less than 20 years ago. "Assuring you of our best attention at all times, yours sincerely, ..."

These days you're damned lucky if the reply even specifies which letter it's replying to!

"Dear Raphael (even though you are not on first-name terms, grrr!), Thank you for your recent letter..."

This is not good enough! Can't they even be bothered to look at the date you put at the top of your letter?! Can they actually even read?!

I think maybe I should just finish my wine and go to bed, now.

In the pursuit of optimal productivity, personally I think business in general damned near killed communications with electronic mail. Making communications so prolific that it inherently devalued any and all incoming and outgoing messages. And making their style of communication a moot point.

Reminds me of that saying: "Be careful of what you wish for. You may get it."

 

[Kalinychta]

No, hang on.

It's late in the evening (by my standards) but language changes over time, and words do change their meaning.

If you go to some parts of rural England and ask, "Will X happen?" you may receive the answer: "I doubt." Which means, yes X will happen for certain. In this instance, although I've never read anything to confirm my hypothesis, I believe the explanation is that "I doubt" is actually short for, "I doubt not."

As in, "I do not doubt that it will happen." Except in briefer and more Shakespearean terms. Like "I know not" or "I see not": "I doubt not."

On the other hand in most parts of England you can receive the answer, "Doubt it!" which is not (as it appears) an instruction but is short for, "I doubt it!" in other words X is quite unlikely to be about to happen.

If you look up the derivation of a word in a decent dictionary, such as Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary, or even the full 13-volume Oxford English Dictionary if you happen to have it lying around, it can be quite amazing how the meaning of a word has evolved and come very far from where it began.

And people have been navigating this ambiguity of words for a long time. And some poetry, and some humour, depends for its effect on double meaning, and that's a very old phenomenon. I once taught Latin, and the Romans had this.

And you can read books by Geza Vermes and see how different interpretations of early translations of the Bible from its original Aramaic language into ancient Greek hinge upon the fact those ancient Greek translators were themselves bamboozled by different possible meanings in the original Aramaic dialect they were endeavouring to translate.

In the Harry Potter books it's perfectly O.K. for the young people to describe an adverse situation as a "bummer". But when I was at school (not that I attended Hogwarts as such), a bummer was a man who engaged in homosexual acts of sodomy, i.e. a man that did other mens' bums, and this would not have been acceptable language in a children's story!

So I'm not sure language ever does actually degrade. It just morphs. The human race has been mangling language clumsily for thousands of years, and it ain't dead yet!

And the etymological anatomy of a lot of words is like a lot of our family trees: full of shady secrets and improbable twists.

So we can afford to be a bit relaxed about this, perhaps.

But obviously I would be in favour of eugenics to eliminate anyone who doesn't know how and where to use an apostrophe. No, this latter comment is not meant 100% seriously, please do not report me to the Political Correctness Police! Like I said, it's late in the evening, if you know what I mean?

I know language changes. It’s great that it does. Slang is one thing (“bummer”), as is “I doubt” versus “I doubt not,” but “literally” is a very specific word with a very specific meaning, and you can’t use it interchangeably with a word that means the exact opposite without causing massive confusion. See my fork and spoon analogy. You can’t change the meaning of the word “blue” to mean the color blue and the color yellow. That would make no sense. Literally and figuratively are opposites.

Also, changing a word’s meaning because everybody hears some celebrity misuse it and the misuse then goes viral seems wrong to me. It seems like a symptom of anti-intellectualism, to be honest. I’m thinking of the movie Idiocracy. In it, the meanings and pronunciations of words were distorted and misused because people became more and more uneducated and intellectually lazy—not because language is mutable and changes and evolves just like any other art form. There’s a huge difference there.

 

[Raphael Outcast]

I am 99% confident I know of examples of where a word has respectably come around to meaning the diametric opposite of its original self, but you'd need to ask me during the morning hours.

If I think of any, I'll get back to you.

p.s. Update:

I've just found Chambers' Twentieth Century. Literally speaking, "literal" means "pertaining to letters of the alphabet" or "epistolary".

So what we conventionally regard as the "correct" meaning of the word is itself a bit of an extension, oh, what's the term I want? Not synecdoche. Metonym? No. Blast!

Chambers' Twentieth Century has this to say about the adverb "literally": "often used by no means literally."

This reminds me of Chambers' classic definition of the adjective "nice": "precise; often used in vague commendation by those who are not nice."

As in the lawyerly phrase, "a nice point of law", or the everyday phrase, "to a nicety". It is true "nice" used to mean "precise". There are still signs of that former meaning, in these other phrases. Yet now, you would not call a precise person a "nice person"; you'd probably call him a pedant!

 

[Kalinychta]

Yes and why oh why did they do away with, "Dear Sir, I am in receipt of yours of the 17th ult., and would beg to advise..."?

My father was still writing letters like that until he sold up and retired, less than 20 years ago. "Assuring you of our best attention at all times, yours sincerely, ..."

These days you're damned lucky if the reply even specifies which letter it's replying to!

"Dear Raphael (even though you are not on first-name terms, grrr!), Thank you for your recent letter..."

This is not good enough! Can't they even be bothered to look at the date you put at the top of your letter?! Can they actually even read?!

I think maybe I should just finish my wine and go to bed, now.

God, I completely agree. I mentioned in my post that I love nineteenth century literature. I was reading Jules Verne last night, and my brain just almost orgasms sometimes at the way people used to write and speak. We are such slobs nowadays. Our use of language is boring, unsophisticated, and almost disrespectful in its informality.

 

[Raphael Outcast]

I was reading Jules Verne last night, and my brain just almost orgasms sometimes at the way people used to write and speak. We are such slobs nowadays. Our use of language is boring, unsophisticated, and almost disrespectful in its informality.

Somewhat agree. Was probably busy re-editing my previous while you were posting this.

There again, people have been expressing your reservations for at least a couple of thousand years. Romans complaining that some Romans were beginning to drop their Hs (or possibly affect Hs: one or the other, anyhow). High society, Classically educated Englishmen in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries talkin' about huntin' an' shootin' an' fishin', what?

P. G. Wodehouse wrote like an angel, yet managed to include phrases such as "oojah-cum-spiff" without triggering street riots.

Never mind. Those of us who know how to double-declutch can carry on double-declutching, even though it is no longer taught and you would in fact fail a present-day driving test for doing it. And those of us who know how to treat the English language with respect are at liberty to continue doing so, just as we are at liberty to continue treating our transmissions with respect. We can just go quietly down with our ship.

I like Disraeli's quip about Gladstone: "A sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity" etc. etc. etc. Wouldn't quite fit into the present-day "soundbite" media template, would it?!

Really really should stop drinking and go to bed now.

Me, I mean, not you.

 

[Kalinychta]

I am 99% confident I know of examples of where a word has respectably come around to meaning the diametric opposite of its original self, but you'd need to ask me during the morning hours.

If I think of any, I'll get back to you.

An Abbott and Costello-like skit could be written about this topic.

One day, the word “fork” means both fork and spoon...

Abbott: May I have a fork, please?
Costello: [hands him a spoon] Here you go.
Abbott: I asked for a fork.
Costello: That is a fork.
Abbott: No, it’s not. It’s a spoon.
Costello: It’s also a fork.
Abbott: How can a spoon also be a fork?
Costello: Because a fork is also a spoon.
Abbott: Fine, then give me another fork.
Costello: I just gave you one.
Abbott: No, I mean a fork that’s also a spoon.
Costello: I told you, a fork is a spoon. I gave you a fork, so technically I gave you a spoon as well.
Abbott: Fine, then give me the type of fork that has a spoon on the end!
Costello: So...a fork, then.
Abbott: @$&#%!!!

And as for the new meaning of literally...

Costello: Do these jeans make my butt look big?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I literally can’t believe you just said that.
Abbott: Why? Is something the matter with your brain that’s preventing it from processing verbal stimuli, or do you believe you may be hallucinating and therefore cannot believe what’s being said here right now?
Costello: No, I meant that I literally can’t believe you just said that.
Abbott: I repeat, is something the matter with your brain and/or are you hallucinating right now?
Costello: I meant literally as in figuratively.
Abbott: Then why did you say literally?
Costello: Because I meant literally.
Abbott: You just said you meant figuratively.
Costello: I did mean it figuratively, therefore I meant it literally.
Abbott: Wait, so your brain is having trouble processing verbal stimuli, and you meant that you were aghast at my comment?
Costello: My brain is fine.
Abbott: So you meant it figuratively.
Costello: Yes, I meant it literally.
Abbott: @$&#%!!!

 

[Kalinychta]

Somewhat agree. Was probably busy re-editing my previous while you were posting this.

There again, people have been expressing your reservations for at least a couple of thousand years. Romans complaining that some Romans were beginning to drop their Hs (or possibly affect Hs: one or the other, anyhow). High society, Classically educated Englishmen in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries talkin' about huntin' an' shootin' an' fishin', what?

P. G. Wodehouse wrote like an angel, yet managed to include phrases such as "oojah-cum-spiff" without triggering street riots.

Never mind. Those of us who know how to double-declutch can carry on double-declutching, even though it is no longer taught and you would in fact fail a present-day driving test for doing it. And those of us who know how to treat the English language with respect are at liberty to continue doing so, just as we are at liberty to continue treating our transmissions with respect. We can just go quietly down with our ship.

I like Disraeli's quip about Gladstone: "A sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity" etc. etc. etc. Wouldn't quite fit into the present-day "soundbite" media template, would it?!

Really really should stop drinking and go to bed now.

Me, I mean, not you.

I do agree with you, but I think you’re missing my overall point. Two different things can’t be called the same thing. When we say ugly, we mean ugly. When we say pretty, we mean pretty. If ugly suddenly becomes interchangeable with pretty, then no one would know whether to be insulted or flattered if someone called them ugly.

Ha! Yes, finish your wine! I hope this conversation doesn’t keep you awake; it’s twisty and turny. Fun, too!

 

[Raphael Outcast]

I'm kind of D.U.I. right now and hence utterly unable to keep up with your wit. In fact I'd probably struggle even when I was stone-cold sober (get back to me when I'm sober and we'll see about that one).

Possibly you missed my edit of post no. 29. But that would not affect the superb validity of your post no. 32.

Hopefully, around 01:30–03:30 my time, which is when most of my few good ideas occur, I may be able to come up with an example. But I think you and I are in different time zones, and also have different blood-alcohol levels right now.

Appreciative good wishes, though.

 

[Kalinychta]

I'm kind of D.U.I. right now and hence utterly unable to keep up with your wit. In fact I'd probably struggle even when I was stone-cold sober (get back to me when I'm sober and we'll see about that one).

Possibly you missed my edit of post no. 29. But that would not affect the superb validity of your post no. 32.

Hopefully, around 01:30–03:30 my time, which is when most of my few good ideas occur, I may be able to come up with an example. But I think you and I are in different time zones, and also have different blood-alcohol levels right now.

Appreciative good wishes, though.

Hahaha! I do completely understand and agree with what you’ve said here. I think we’re just talking about slightly different things perhaps.

“oojah-cum-spiff” is a $10 word, by the way. Many thanks to Mister Wodehouse for that one.

 

[Raphael Outcast]

Wasn't there an ancient Greek noun which could mean either "stranger" or "friend"?

Was it Xenia?

An ambiguity Homer made free with, if I recollect correctly.

And then what about the Latin adjective "altus"? Can mean "deep", can mean "high".

The way to reconcile this is to posit that "altus" stands for the concept of "significant vertical extent", whether upward or downward. But try explaining that to a sceptical bunch of teenagers on a windy Tuesday afternoon...

No the conversation isn't keeping me awake. It's only making my insomnia more bearable.

x

 

[tree]

The words "bad" and "sick" are used in slang in ways opposite their standard meanings.

The Grammarphobia Blog: When "bad" means "good"
Origin of current slang usage of the word 'sick' to mean 'great'?
Definition of Sick, BuzzWord from Macmillan Dictionary

 

[Kalinychta]

Wasn't there an ancient Greek noun which could mean either "stranger" or "friend"?

Was it Xenia?

An ambiguity Homer made free with, if I recollect correctly.

And then what about the Latin adjective "altus"? Can mean "deep", can mean "high".

The way to reconcile this is to posit that "altus" stands for the concept of "significant vertical extent", whether upward or downward. But try explaining that to a sceptical bunch of teenagers on a windy Tuesday afternoon...

No the conversation isn't keeping me awake. It's only making my insomnia more bearable.

x

Altus meaning deep or high: that I get. Context disambiguates the meaning, at least most of the time.
“Look at how ‘altus’ that pool is!” Unless an earthquake has just caused the ground to hurl upward to skyscraper height or the pool has been smoking an illegal substance, we’d assume the speaker meant deep, not high.

Stranger and friend: I would add this to my spoon/fork and literal/figurative list, but who am I to challenge Homer...

Insomnia, my old [insert the Greek word you mentioned that means both stranger and friend]...

 

[Raphael Outcast]

The words "bad" and "sick" are used in slang in ways opposite their standard meanings.

So perhaps the good old-fashioned concept of irony may explain some of the turnarounds in the meanings of words?

"Salubrious" technically means healthy. But in my student days, "salubrious" meant some crummy rat-infested joint that not even a syphilitic rat would pay rent on. And it may yet come to pass that "salubrious" ultimately begins to mean the opposite of its original self, if this once sardonic slang gains sufficient traction.

 

[Kalinychta]

The words "bad" and "sick" are used in slang in ways opposite their standard meanings.

The Grammarphobia Blog: When "bad" means "good"
Origin of current slang usage of the word 'sick' to mean 'great'?
Definition of Sick, BuzzWord from Macmillan Dictionary

This is a really good point. I think slang is different, though. Slang versus misuse. There can certainly be a fine line between the two, though.