Bush is, literally, an incredible speaker.

[conuly]

It is incredible how incredible he is!

*laughs at bad joke*

All joking aside, I have a question. Most people (and this includes me) dislike the more figurative use of the word "literal" as an intensifier. If you're standing here talking to me, you didn't literally die of shock.

And no, I don't especially care in an emotional way that it's been used that way for a few hundred years. I care in a less-deep-seated way - keeps me from complaining about it out loud - but really, it's one of those facts nobody really believes.

But nobody minds the use of incredible as a similar intensifier, or unbelievable. "That jump was unbelievable!" "That movie is just incredible!" Really? The movie is completely false but purporting to be true? You don't believe the jump was made?

Why is this?

(Incidentally, I read a comment lately complaining about how some people use y'all in the singular, and "all y'all" in the plural. "That's just not right!" While I agree it grates on my ears, it's no more "not right" than using you in the singular. And if y'all is acceptable, youse and you'uns and yinz ought to be as well. Less hypocrisy, more thought, mmmmkay?)

Comments

[rho]

I think that with unbelievable and the likes, there's a sort of toned down meaning of "difficult to believe" or "I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself". On the other hand, literal -- to my mind at least -- is more of a binary switch. Something is either literal or it is figurative. Adding a quantifier like "very literal" makes as little sense (to me) as the likes of "very unique".

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

I'm a defender of the "very unique" usage. Richard Feynman wrote about the degrees of being wrong... it's wrong for a child to answer that 2+2=7 on a test, but it's even more wrong if they answer 2+2=green. In the same way, a square would be unique in a group of circles, but a cotton candy replica of "The Thinker" drenched in gasoline and set on fire would be... more unique.

[conuly]

Pfft. 2+2 clearly equals yellow, not *green*. Doesn't anybody know anything?

But it's a good answer to the question all the same. Kinda like how some infinities are bigger than other infinities, except without breaking my brain?

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

Clearly. That's why I said it was such a wrong answer!

[rho]

To me "this group of items that is here in front of me" doesn't feel right as a group for the purpose of determining uniqueness. To my mind, unique always refers to whole classes of tiems. Unique amongst the global set. Unique amongst United Statres presidents. Unique amongst extant fauna of Madagascar. Unique amongst types of geometric shapes.

Once you start refering to specific artificially selected groupings, such as "this here group of items in front of me" you end up being able to say things like "Gerald Ford is unique amongst all American presidents who aren't Millard Fillmore, in that his surname begins with F". From a purely logical perspective, it's true, but to my mind it's still an absurd statement.

So going back to your example, I wouldn't say that the square was unique, nor would I say that the replica of "The Thinker" was unique, because I wouldn't consider the set they were being compared with to to be sufficiently natural or meaningful. Instead, I'd say that the square was the odd one out, and that "the Thinker" was by far and away the odd one out.

(And yes, I'm well aware that those aren't hard and fast rules, and that reasonable sensible people can and will disagree, but that's how I see things.)

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

I intentionally gave simplistic examples for simplicity's sake in the explanation. I still maintain there are levels of unique just as there are degrees of wrong.

[rho]

Could you give a non-simplistic example? I'm genuinely interested in the idea you're presenting, but not sure whether I can agree with it or not.

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

I think it could be boiled down to this idea: think of something you DO consider unique (in whatever global set you're comparing it to). Now imagine something ten times more bizarre. Chances are you've got an example of my "more unique" theory.

Imagine you read a book with a truly unique storyline. (Yeah, I know that's unlikely). Now imagine if the same book was printed in green ink on razorblades and required six AA batteries just to open the cover.

I realize my example and explanation rely on the bizarre and unlikely, but it's just the easiest way to present the concept. I could probably come up with more realistic examples but honestly I don't have time to put that much effort into it right now. It could be an interesting idea for an essay at some point in the future.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

I agree with Rho... The use of "unbelievable" or "incredible" is supposed to mean "amazing to the point that it's extremely hard to believe it is true or really happened" or something along those lines.

It strikes me as extremely bizarre that people would complain about how slang is used, though. (Would that be considered slang? I believe it's related to dialect, at least, and I know those terms don't show up in 'Western American' English. A good friend from the East Coast went so far as to say that she can always recognize people from my side of the country because we don't slur vowels together the way people do back there, and therefore completely botch pronouncing place names.)

[conuly]

Um... I've never been very clear on where slang becomes dialect. I believe there *is* a distinction, but... it's a distinction that, if I understand it, I can't explain.

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

I have the same trouble with the distinction between "flat out wrong" and "dialect". Stuff like "Ebonics"... I know it's considered a dialect... but there is a line somewhere between here and there and I don't know where that line is.

[conuly]

*coughs slightly*

Can we not use the word Ebonics? It's all... well... I think it's a silly word, and it makes discussing the subject difficult. It was too clearly made up by an advertising staff with too much time on its hands, trying to combine for the pleasing connotations of phonics (and failing miserably, I might add...) AAVE. African American Vernacular English. It's a mouthful, but at least I don't feel like I'm talking babytalk when I say the phrase.

*checks watch*

Dang. It's not yet midnight. I can't count this onto my "rants for the week" for next week. This week was so stressful, I don't have a rantslist for it.

More seriously, I think there *isn't* a difference between "flat-out wrong" and "dialect". We've all heard that languages are dialects with armies and navies. Well, dialects are "flat-out wrong" ideas that have some minor political support. Or, conversely, things that are "flat-out wrong" are simply dialectical features that particular speakers dislike.

Consider "noo kyoo lar". This is a valid dialectical difference. Plenty of perfectly intelligent people use that pronunciation. However, certain parts of the public have glommed onto it as "just plain wrong" because Bush uses it. They use it to prove he's stupid. (Nevermind that every aspect of his speech has been carefully planned in order to gain him votes, and it's cursedly *worked*, it's all a sign he's stupid....)

And the reason people give for disliking the pronunciation? Well, it's not spelled that way. Nuclear. Except that again isn't considered "just wrong" when we say it "agin", and often *is* considered wrong when we pronounce it as it's spelled.

I can't predict what any individual person or group will consider "just plain wrong", but except for wildly ungrammatical (in the literal, not popular sense) sentences, they do seem to all fit into some dialect or another - even if the inner prescriptivist in us all (or not so inner) doesn't like it.

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

Can we not use the word Ebonics?
I dislike it, too, and consider its legitimacy/origins spurious, which is why I put it in quotation marks.

I think your "again" and "agin" (which DOES sound messed up to me) versus pronunciations of "nuclear" example is more a case of people finding it more acceptable to shorten or simplify words or drop sounds than to add them.

[conuly]

But it *is* simplifying a word - it's taking a word with a fairly uncommon set of sounds at the end (how many words do you know of that end cle-ur?) and substituting a much more common word-ending (especially for scientific words) - cyo-lar. A simple case of metathesis, like the one that turned acsian into ask.

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

My point is that I think people are more tolerant of changes that remove or blend sounds than changes that add sounds. In this case, you're adding a "yoo" that just isn't there.

[conuly]

Well, only kinda.... I could blather on about it, but I'd rapidly reach the end of my knowledge and have to work on supposition and making-stuff-up.

[conuly]

And I do get the point, but I'm busy in talking mode right now - point recognizing isn't the... um... objective!

[conuly]

Sorry. I Have Views on the subject.

[conuly]

This rant is entirely amateur, by the way. Nobody better say I'm misrepresenting myself.... *grumblemuttergrumble*

[l33tminion]

I don't mind if someone uses "literally" figuratively. The irony makes up for the non-standard grammar.

On the other hand, "more unique" irritates me.

[rho]

I think that with unbelievable and the likes, there's a sort of toned down meaning of "difficult to believe" or "I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself". On the other hand, literal -- to my mind at least -- is more of a binary switch. Something is either literal or it is figurative. Adding a quantifier like "very literal" makes as little sense (to me) as the likes of "very unique".

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

I'm a defender of the "very unique" usage. Richard Feynman wrote about the degrees of being wrong... it's wrong for a child to answer that 2+2=7 on a test, but it's even more wrong if they answer 2+2=green. In the same way, a square would be unique in a group of circles, but a cotton candy replica of "The Thinker" drenched in gasoline and set on fire would be... more unique.

[conuly]

Pfft. 2+2 clearly equals yellow, not *green*. Doesn't anybody know anything?

But it's a good answer to the question all the same. Kinda like how some infinities are bigger than other infinities, except without breaking my brain?

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

Clearly. That's why I said it was such a wrong answer!

[rho]

To me "this group of items that is here in front of me" doesn't feel right as a group for the purpose of determining uniqueness. To my mind, unique always refers to whole classes of tiems. Unique amongst the global set. Unique amongst United Statres presidents. Unique amongst extant fauna of Madagascar. Unique amongst types of geometric shapes.

Once you start refering to specific artificially selected groupings, such as "this here group of items in front of me" you end up being able to say things like "Gerald Ford is unique amongst all American presidents who aren't Millard Fillmore, in that his surname begins with F". From a purely logical perspective, it's true, but to my mind it's still an absurd statement.

So going back to your example, I wouldn't say that the square was unique, nor would I say that the replica of "The Thinker" was unique, because I wouldn't consider the set they were being compared with to to be sufficiently natural or meaningful. Instead, I'd say that the square was the odd one out, and that "the Thinker" was by far and away the odd one out.

(And yes, I'm well aware that those aren't hard and fast rules, and that reasonable sensible people can and will disagree, but that's how I see things.)

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

I intentionally gave simplistic examples for simplicity's sake in the explanation. I still maintain there are levels of unique just as there are degrees of wrong.

[rho]

Could you give a non-simplistic example? I'm genuinely interested in the idea you're presenting, but not sure whether I can agree with it or not.

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

I think it could be boiled down to this idea: think of something you DO consider unique (in whatever global set you're comparing it to). Now imagine something ten times more bizarre. Chances are you've got an example of my "more unique" theory.

Imagine you read a book with a truly unique storyline. (Yeah, I know that's unlikely). Now imagine if the same book was printed in green ink on razorblades and required six AA batteries just to open the cover.

I realize my example and explanation rely on the bizarre and unlikely, but it's just the easiest way to present the concept. I could probably come up with more realistic examples but honestly I don't have time to put that much effort into it right now. It could be an interesting idea for an essay at some point in the future.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

I agree with Rho... The use of "unbelievable" or "incredible" is supposed to mean "amazing to the point that it's extremely hard to believe it is true or really happened" or something along those lines.

It strikes me as extremely bizarre that people would complain about how slang is used, though. (Would that be considered slang? I believe it's related to dialect, at least, and I know those terms don't show up in 'Western American' English. A good friend from the East Coast went so far as to say that she can always recognize people from my side of the country because we don't slur vowels together the way people do back there, and therefore completely botch pronouncing place names.)

[conuly]

Um... I've never been very clear on where slang becomes dialect. I believe there *is* a distinction, but... it's a distinction that, if I understand it, I can't explain.

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

I have the same trouble with the distinction between "flat out wrong" and "dialect". Stuff like "Ebonics"... I know it's considered a dialect... but there is a line somewhere between here and there and I don't know where that line is.

[conuly]

*coughs slightly*

Can we not use the word Ebonics? It's all... well... I think it's a silly word, and it makes discussing the subject difficult. It was too clearly made up by an advertising staff with too much time on its hands, trying to combine for the pleasing connotations of phonics (and failing miserably, I might add...) AAVE. African American Vernacular English. It's a mouthful, but at least I don't feel like I'm talking babytalk when I say the phrase.

*checks watch*

Dang. It's not yet midnight. I can't count this onto my "rants for the week" for next week. This week was so stressful, I don't have a rantslist for it.

More seriously, I think there *isn't* a difference between "flat-out wrong" and "dialect". We've all heard that languages are dialects with armies and navies. Well, dialects are "flat-out wrong" ideas that have some minor political support. Or, conversely, things that are "flat-out wrong" are simply dialectical features that particular speakers dislike.

Consider "noo kyoo lar". This is a valid dialectical difference. Plenty of perfectly intelligent people use that pronunciation. However, certain parts of the public have glommed onto it as "just plain wrong" because Bush uses it. They use it to prove he's stupid. (Nevermind that every aspect of his speech has been carefully planned in order to gain him votes, and it's cursedly *worked*, it's all a sign he's stupid....)

And the reason people give for disliking the pronunciation? Well, it's not spelled that way. Nuclear. Except that again isn't considered "just wrong" when we say it "agin", and often *is* considered wrong when we pronounce it as it's spelled.

I can't predict what any individual person or group will consider "just plain wrong", but except for wildly ungrammatical (in the literal, not popular sense) sentences, they do seem to all fit into some dialect or another - even if the inner prescriptivist in us all (or not so inner) doesn't like it.

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

Can we not use the word Ebonics?
I dislike it, too, and consider its legitimacy/origins spurious, which is why I put it in quotation marks.

I think your "again" and "agin" (which DOES sound messed up to me) versus pronunciations of "nuclear" example is more a case of people finding it more acceptable to shorten or simplify words or drop sounds than to add them.

[conuly]

But it *is* simplifying a word - it's taking a word with a fairly uncommon set of sounds at the end (how many words do you know of that end cle-ur?) and substituting a much more common word-ending (especially for scientific words) - cyo-lar. A simple case of metathesis, like the one that turned acsian into ask.

[opalcat.livejournal.com]

My point is that I think people are more tolerant of changes that remove or blend sounds than changes that add sounds. In this case, you're adding a "yoo" that just isn't there.

[conuly]

Well, only kinda.... I could blather on about it, but I'd rapidly reach the end of my knowledge and have to work on supposition and making-stuff-up.

[conuly]

And I do get the point, but I'm busy in talking mode right now - point recognizing isn't the... um... objective!

[conuly]

Sorry. I Have Views on the subject.

[conuly]

This rant is entirely amateur, by the way. Nobody better say I'm misrepresenting myself.... *grumblemuttergrumble*

[l33tminion]

I don't mind if someone uses "literally" figuratively. The irony makes up for the non-standard grammar.

On the other hand, "more unique" irritates me.