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.