Re: OT: literally

[Carl Distefano cld@xxxxxxxx]

Reply to note from "Patricia M. Godfrey"  Fri,
08 Jun 2007 19:08:41 -0400

Patricia:

> The second is the use exemplified by Pogue's article. What he
> is saying is literally true, not a metaphor, but why would
> anyone think it's a metaphor? As Carl said, it's not a mortal
> sin, but it certainly is a venial one, and I fear a vicious
> habit among many writers. The word does no real work in the
> sentence, and expresses no more meaning than "I did, I actually
> did."

You seem to be assuming that the only valid use of "literally" is in
the oppositional sense of "not figuratively". But a testimonial use
of the word -- as shorthand for "I did, I actually did" -- seems
equally valid to me, especially in speech, and in online
communications, which often serve as a kind of surrogate speech. 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's a potent function of language, not to be dismissed.
It's worth noting that Pogue's peccadillo, if that's what it was,
appeared not in a print "article", but in a post to his NYTimes
blog, Pogue's Posts. The opening sentence of the piece is "I'm a
bi-platform kinda guy" -- not a phrase that would pass muster with a
Times print editor, I daresay.  But, in his blog, Pogue is talking
to his audience as much as he's writing for it. Online readers
appreciate this instinctively, and cut the author some slack. At
least, I do.

What really interests me about this thread is the way the etymon
hits home in a group of writers such as this. No one gets too
worked up when "data" morphs into a singular noun. But start
messing with our letters, and all hell breaks loose. When it comes
to "literally", it seems, nothing less than a literal reading will
do.

--
Carl Distefano
cld@xxxxxxxx