I do not consider myself to be a spelling, grammar, or diction Nazi. Patrick would tell you that, at least insofar as spelling is concerned, I am more of a conscientious objector. I avoid correcting spelling and grammar in others, with the exception of (1) responses to letters in which opposing counsel has been rude, and (2) ridicule-based male bonding.
But there is one thing that figuratively tempts me to launch a blitzkrieg at a speaker’s conversational Maginot Line – the misuse of “literally.” That’s why I gain constant sick satisfaction with Literally, a Weblog, which documents figurative atrocities involving “literally,” as well as the occasional correct usage.
“Literally” is a big concept packed into a modest word. It’s a way of saying “look, I know that hyperbole is common and you might assume that what I am saying is overstated for effect, but it’s not — this is what actually happened, not my rhetorical self-indulgence.” It’s a classic example of development of a term that makes language clearer and more accurate. That’s what infuriates me about the misuse of the word. When people say stupid shit like “I was literally starving to death,” it’s like they’re saying “screw you, language, screw you, precision. I’m Humpty Fucking Dumpty here.” They’re the conversational equivalent of driving recklessly and drunk with a “baby on board” sticker on your bumper. I’d be a little more forgiving if I thought it was meant as irony, but it’s clearly not — it’s people deliberately ignoring the actual meaning of a word in favor of using it for slack-jaw emphasis.
Last 5 posts by Ken
- Lazy, Hung Over - July 23rd, 2008
- It Must Be The Third Circuit's Month To Refute Stupidity . . . - July 21st, 2008
- After certain weekends with the kids... - July 21st, 2008
- Suppose We Agree That The Town Can't Show The Movie, But it Has The RIGHT To Show The Movie? - July 21st, 2008
- Rest Easy, Papa Hemingway - July 21st, 2008
Latest Comments