Reactionary

There’s something loose out there, tearing through the fabric of the English language. That thing is the over- and misuse of the word “literally”. The word is an opposite word, meaning it has a partner of which it is a clean and defined opposite in meaning. The opposite word is “figuratively”. “Literally” means: according to the primary and natural import of words. “Figuratively” means: based on or making use of figures of speech; metaphorical.

To be literal is to be about the actual meaning of a word and figurative is the opposite, to use words or say words in a way that is not in their meaning to illustrate a point. Someone figuratively unable to put a book down is so engrossed in it they have a hard time walking away from it and may stay up all night to read it. Someone literally unable to put a book down has had it stapled, sutured, or super glued onto their hand and they may need surgery in the near future. Get it? It may be confusing in that “literally” has to be spoken/ written to be effective; “figuratively” does not. The same end can be achieved via tone or inflection or the metaphor being so extreme that it can only have been meant figuratively.

What “literally” is NOT is an intensive as “really” might be. People insist on using it that way and oddly, the ones who do do it ALL the time as if they had no other words in their arsenal of spoken self-expression or as if (even more sadly) think they’re using it in a sophisticated, hip way. That’s not the case. Words have a meaning, use them.

Another written faux pas common at a popular U2 news site is the dropping of the word “of” when saying “a couple of _noun_”. It’s being written as “a couple -noun-”. While it may sound like the “of” is dropped when speaking, it really must be added in when writing to make the sentence coherent.

These things are more than a matter of form. I don’t care who splits infinitives or breaks grammar rules as long as it’s being done to prove a point or achieve a certain tone or sound in the language. These two things are among a growng list of language sins that do none of those things. All they illustrate is ignorance.

Posted on October 28th, 2004 under Scholar •  Print •  Email • RSS 2.0 feed • Both comments and pings are currently closed