[Vampyr]

 kenberg, on 2012-November-04, 08:31, said:

As a child, I thought that "literally" meant "figuratively" or at least something other than "literally". I don't believe either of my parents ever used the word, and whenever I saw it in print it was usually impossible that what was described as being literally true could in fact be literally true. So I figured it meant "in a manner of speaking" or some such. I was a rather literal minded child, even if I did not know what that meant.

You are right that "literally" is very often misused. I realise that English is a living language, and that new meanings are taken on simply by usage. The problem is that if "literally" means "figuratively", there is no word that can be used when you really want to describe something literal.

For example, we sometimes talk about falling asleep at the bridge table. Recently I was at a club weekend and was suffering a cold and was very fatigued. On the Saturday night I literally fell asleep at the table. This is difficult to recount if "literally" is not taken, er, literally.

[kenberg]

This usage of "literally" is, I think, similar to the usage of "exponentially" to mean "rapidly". Gas prices are going up exponentially. My headache is increasing exponentially. The occurrence of exponentially is increasing exponentially. There was a recent newscast where something was described as increasing logarithmically. I have no idea what that was intended to convey. Very lowly, maybe.

Perhaps "literally" is worse, since it often appears to mean "not literally".

[phil_20686]

Thought you might enjoy this

http://marginalrevol...ally-up-to.html


Also, literally's usage is confusing, as it also means "literally" in the sense of being directly from literature. That is you can use it to signify that you are quoting from a piece of literature. I think this is probably how its usage got started. "Its literally a modest proposal" to indicate something is ridiculous is ok I think. Here it is intended to mean that you should take the meaning "a modest proposal" from the Swift satire about cannibalising infants, not the usual meaning. You are doing a "literal translation" if you like.

[gordontd]

I find "like" is worse: I often cannot tell whether the speaker means something is like something else, or is saying that it is that other thing.

[Zelandakh]

Try using "generally" for "literally" if you want to avoid confusion from those that misuse the latter word. "On Saturday night I genuinely fell asleep at the table." Or, if you are under 16, just add "For real" to the end (or whichever cool expression is currently passing for that): "On Saturday night I fell asleep at the table. For real."

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2012-November-04, 11:06, said:

I find "like" is worse: I often cannot tell whether the speaker means something is like something else, or is saying that it is that other thing.

Often this is paired, you know, like, with "you know", and, like, you don't know.

[WellSpyder]

 kenberg, on 2012-November-04, 10:35, said:

Perhaps "literally" is worse, since it often appears to mean "not literally".

Ken, am I right in recalling you are a mathematician? It was through a maths lecturer that I was introduced to the concept of a "formal" proof, which I naively took to be a rigorous one. Apparently, it actually meant that he was just giving the "form" of the proof without the details, which is almost the opposite of what I thought it meant....

[Zelandakh]

I thought a formal proof was one that stemmed directly from axioms through a series of equivalent statements. Have never heard of this meaning before.

[ArtK78]

I thought that a formal proof was one drafted while wearing a black bow tie and tails.

[Zelandakh]

 ArtK78, on 2012-November-05, 09:34, said:

I thought that a formal proof was one drafted while wearing a black bow tie and tails.

You are getting confused with a formal Prof!

[Vampyr]

 ArtK78, on 2012-November-05, 09:34, said:

I thought that a formal proof was one drafted while wearing a black bow tie and tails.

A white bow tie is much more normal with a tailcoat.

[ArtK78]

 Vampyr, on 2012-November-05, 13:10, said:

A white bow tie is much more normal with a tailcoat.

Yes, I think I got that one wrong. Thanks.

[kenberg]

 WellSpyder, on 2012-November-05, 09:06, said:

Ken, am I right in recalling you are a mathematician? It was through a maths lecturer that I was introduced to the concept of a "formal" proof, which I naively took to be a rigorous one. Apparently, it actually meant that he was just giving the "form" of the proof without the details, which is almost the opposite of what I thought it meant....

Yes I am a mathematician and I have never heard this approach referred to as a formal proof. At it's most extreme, I think of a formal proof as one that can be checked, or perhaps even done, by a computer. More often, it means a proof with little or no appeal to the type of argument where one says "Oh yeah, I don't doubt you can do it even if you have not written it all down". Formal proofs have detail. With a formal proof, one sometimes hears a person say "Line by line I see that it is true, but I don't understand it" meaning that it's hard to place it in a context.

I often think of Steve Smale as the master of the informal proof. He will talk about the ideas for a while, and then ask "Anyone see anything wrong with this?". If no one does, he moves on to the next result. You can cover a lot of ground that way,. With Smale it works very well. With some others, maybe less well.

[gwnn]

Ellie Goulding is really not political but what do you think of "Why don't you be the artist and make me out of clay?" It sounds correct to me but logically it feels strange (even though I can't "correct" it without major revisions).

[Vampyr]

 gwnn, on 2012-November-13, 06:48, said:

Ellie Goulding is really not political but what do you think of "Why don't you be the artist and make me out of clay?" It sounds correct to me but logically it feels strange (even though I can't "correct" it without major revisions).

Of course it doesn't actually mean anything -- grammar isn't everything!

[gwnn]

 Vampyr, on 2012-November-13, 07:54, said:

Of course it doesn't actually mean anything -- grammar isn't everything!

Thank God for that.

[PassedOut]

Headline from the local paper about a fire:

"The whole back of the house was inflamed"

Antibiotics didn't help.

[Zelandakh]

See meaning #9 and the last line of the etymology. Not that I would have written that. Most likely it started as "engulfed in flame" or similarly overblown newspaper language but had to be edited down hurriedly due to space requirements.

[kenberg]

Newspaper articles are still edited? The evidence seems to indicate that they are not.

[blackshoe]

I've just been reading a new (to me) set of rules for a role-playing game (Legend of the Five Rings). Nicely bound book, very pretty illustrations, well laid out. But edited? At first I thought they were trying to emulate a Japanese native trying to write in English, but I've become convinced it was just poorly edited, if it was edited at all. Still, looks like it might be interesting, if you're into that kind of thing. There's a collectible card game, too.