Re: OT: literally

["Patricia M. Godfrey" priscamg@xxxxxxxx]

Carl Distefano wrote:
>  As speakers, we often feel the need to bolster a point with verbal
> intensifiers and even physical gestures ("Scout's honor", with three
> fingers raised); as listeners, we respond viscerally to these
> actions.
That is indeed true. Spoken language has at its command, in addition
to words themselves, verbal stress, other inflections (think of the
accentuation that accompanies what David recently called "Yiddish
fronting"), facial expression, gestures, and probably a few others
that I cannot think of now. Written language lacks those, but has
instead such devices as punctuation, typography (capitalization and
italics), and the ability to employ a more complex sentence structure
to clarify meaning.
Whether thee is a distinction between spoken and written language as
such when it comes to the use and meaning of words, however, is open
to debate. As far as usage goes, some things that are unforgivable in
writing may pass in speech on the grounds that the speaker had not had
time to fully organize his or her words (e.g., an erroneous case form
or even a dangling participle), but that does not make them RIGHT;
merely forgivable.
And some things may be acceptable in speech, not because it is speech
as such but because it is informal--e.g., such things as "Who he?" or
"Wha' happen'?" And informal writing has its own conventions; I'm
thinking of all those initialisms (IIRC, AFAIK, LOL, etc.) with which
we--even I--pepper our e-mails.
But I would strongly resist the idea that a word could have a meaning
acceptable in speech or informal writing and not in formal writing.
I don't mean that words cannot or should not change their meanings.
That would be to fall into the error of the Renaissance Humanists (by
which they killed Latin as a living language). But a new meaning
should not be the flat-out opposite of an old meaning. That way lies
semantic confusion without end.


--
Patricia M. Godfrey
PriscaMG@xxxxxxxx