Why we are so critical of people who can't spell and punctuate

[Captain Kremmen]

Hmm, I must be misinformed about the term "virtually impossible". I always thought it meant that it was completely, totally, absolutely impossible.

Has English changed that much over the last few years?

Baron Max

If something has no possibility of occurring then that is "literally impossible".
People mistakenly use that phrase in place of "almost impossible".

"Practically impossible" should convey the meaning that something can be done but that the effort to do it is so great that it is not worth doing.
Again people use it as an alternative to "almost impossible"

I use "virtually impossible" myself to mean "almost impossible", but there is probably another shade of meaning.

 

[Ophiolite]

The distinctions between these can best be conveyed in this sentence.

"It is virtually impossible to get Baron Max to agree with you, but impossible to become concerned by that. It is literally impossible that Baron Max will be able to resist at least the thought of commenting on these observations."

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Hmm, I must be misinformed about the term "virtually impossible". I always thought it meant that it was completely, totally, absolutely impossible. Has English changed that much over the last few years?

Look up the adverb "virtually." It allows for exceptions. The whole point of putting a modifier in front of an absolute word like "impossible" is to modify it.

• The performance was virtually flawless. There were some barely noticeable intonation problems in the brass section.
• The food at Sam's Bistro was virtually inedible. It did not actually make me throw up.
• President Bush is virtually incapable of telling a joke. Occasionally he does so unintentionally by mangling his sentences.

People grumble about the prevalence of "nearly unique." They say "uniqueness" is absolute, it's either there or it's not. And they miss the point, because adverbs like "nearly" allow us to express relative conditions using absolute words.

If something has no possibility of occurring then that is "literally impossible". People mistakenly use that phrase in place of "almost impossible".

On a scientific website like ours, it should be enough to just say "impossible" when we mean "not possible." People say things like "I literally fell over laughing" as in intensifer, in a situation where we know dadgum well that they did not fall over since there are no Band-Aids. Their command of the language is insufficient to express to us why the situation was so funny, so instead they express to us how they reacted to it. We can forgo the criticism and simply pity them for their inarticulateness.

But "literally impossible" should be equivalent "truly impossible, I mean it, not just the American legal definition of 'true beyond a reasonable doubt'." Obviously the word "literal" is losing its meaning and will soon need to be supplanted by something stronger.

I use "virtually impossible" myself to mean "almost impossible", but there is probably another shade of meaning.

Hmmm. My sociolinguistic group uses "virtually" as a stronger modifier than "almost." "Almost impossible" to us means, "There are people out there who have dropped out of school and gotten away with it and you may meet one, but this won't happen in any of your friends' families because you're all perfect parents." "Virtually impossible" means, "There are people out there who have dropped out of school and gotten away with it, but they're so rare that the L.A. Times can't find a poster child for the phenomenon to put on the front page."

 

[Grantywanty]

People say things like "I literally fell over laughing" as in intensifer, in a situation where we know dadgum well that they did not fall over since there are no Band-Aids. Their command of the language is insufficient to express to us why the situation was so funny, so instead they express to us how they reacted to it. We can forgo the criticism and simply pity them for their inarticulateness.

See, I think this is unfair and unnecessarily smug. Where I would draw the line of course would probably make me uncomfortable with my own smugness, but that's another issue.

1) you could look at the use of 'literally' as an intensifier - of a very specific type I would argue - as a kind of trope.

2) language is not logical and does not evolve logically. Meanings change through misinterpretations and we all use words in ways that go against earlier meanings and the 'literal' roots of the words. Those people are simply participating and adding to a trend of meaning and use change of literally. A change that will become, probably, accepted. Words change and shift and disappear and return and get borrow from other languages and mangled.

3) I think that 'literally' when used in situations where whatever is referred to did not literally happen is not simply a neutral intensifier but rather speaks to a phenomenological truth and literalness. It felt like I could fall over. It was laughter of such intensity that I might very well have fallen over.

Does the person who 'misuses' 'literally' in the way you described communicate effectively? Yes, they do. Their listeners are rarely misled. If they are communicating effectively, can we really say they are inarticulate? Language is for us.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Yeah, okay, so I'm smug. But you see the problem with illogical evolution of language. On the one hand I've got Max telling me to tighten up my definition of "virtually," on the other you're telling me to loosen up my definition of "literally."

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Yeah, okay, so I'm smug. But you see the problem with illogical evolution of language. On the one hand I've got Max telling me to tighten up my definition of "virtually," on the other you're telling me to loosen up my definition of "literally."

Literally:
"According to the primitive import of words"- Dr Johnson's dictionary 1768

is going the way of Nice:
"Scrupulously and minutely cautious" -Dr Johnson's dictionary 1768

Don't be cowed. Make a stand now!

 

[Ophiolite]

That's literally a nice point. (Sometimes Chris, you're impossible.)

 

[Captain Kremmen]

That's literally a nice point. (Sometimes Chris, you're impossible.)

I'm open to modern interpretations. 1768 was the 3rd edition!

(I am joking. Though DJ's dictionary is online now from google, and an accepted definition of a basic vocabulary might be useful. )

Will try to add a link.

 

[lucifers angel]

Grammar is spelled g-r-a-m-m-a-r.

also you've got to take into account the differant spellings for differant countries:

colour: Bristish
Color: American

 

[Grantywanty]

Yeah, okay, so I'm smug. But you see the problem with illogical evolution of language. On the one hand I've got Max telling me to tighten up my definition of "virtually," on the other you're telling me to loosen up my definition of "literally."

I sympathize. But here's the thing: literally, I did not tell you to do this. I reacted to you judging others for using it in a way you didn't like. And that's not splitting hairs. I would not (literally or metaphorically) track your usage of the word and decide you were using it in too limited a fashion. I think it's fine the way you use it. I also think that Baron Max was incorrect, not simply being judgemental or fussy.

As far as illogical evolution of language: I don't think we have another option. It is not as if we have a base of logic and we have recently strayed. We used metaphors in all their cultural oddness, misplaced specificity and loose-fitting creativity to build up most of the language we take for granted as rational. And this base evolved in at times logical extentions but also often in illogical or sloppy extensions or substitutions. I mean, that is language.

Or course I would also react with fussiness to certain developments. I have never liked 'impact' as a verb and other business world jargon with all its attendant 'cool' and smarmy positiveness. In fact many of the business terms (and the fads that go with them) are irritating, especially if they arise in non-business contexts. I almost feel like a relgious fundamentalist fearing the infectious qualities of certain words.

(I wish I could mention some other example, but my internal editor is not letting any of these terms up. Perhaps I should start a thread on business terms that ruin the language.)

Anyway, you clearly know enough about a wide range of areas of knowledge to justify the occasional smugness. I wish I was as thorough in many of the same realms and yet I am no stranger to smugness.

 

[Grantywanty]

What about Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use'?
If it works, isn't it ok?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

As far as illogical evolution of language: I don't think we have another option.

Oh I agree, sorry if I gave a different impression. Logic is neat and orderly, but the illogical roots of any language are often what makes it charming.

In fact many of the business terms (and the fads that go with them) are irritating, especially if they arise in non-business contexts.

I hope you organize Buzzword Bingo and pass out the cards at your staff meetings. The law of averages occasionally comes up with one of those coinages that communicates something and is worth keeping. I rather like the image of "thinking outside the box," and the slogan "work smarter, not harder" should be printed on our money, now that the average American work week has crept back up to the 50 hours it was a century ago and all we've got to show for that herculean effort are products like Windows.

What about Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use'? If it works, isn't it ok?

No, precisely because it's not a yes-no question. How well does it work? Even the worst rap lyrics with their 300-word vocabulary manage to communicate something.

 

[Grantywanty]

No, precisely because it's not a yes-no question. How well does it work? Even the worst rap lyrics with their 300-word vocabulary manage to communicate something.

Good point about it not being a yes, no question, but in the case at hand I think it's a pretty clear yes.

Someone uses 'literally' as an intensifier. The listener does not get confused. Especially in most contexts where it is used this way.

And let's take a moment to look at other potential intensifiers:

really - "It was really funny." Well, of course it was 'real' so what is the person 'really' trying to say.
incredibly - "He was incredibly _________" Actually I can believe that he was that __________. And you seem to believe it. Hmm.
truly - this is strange, the speaker is emphasizing that what they are saying is true. Or are they a platonic person, saying that the concrete instance was near the ideal form?

and so on.

 

[Chatha]

If people can't spell today, its only going to get worse. These days school papers, resumes, E-mails, e.t.c are done with computers, which by the way has spell and punctuation checkers. I once had a biology teacher who emphasized we write our paper and even...get this, our lab report with our hands and with a pencil. It was supposed to encourage proper grammar and spelling but others would argue it was archaic.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If people can't spell today, its only going to get worse. These days school papers, resumes, E-mails, e.t.c are done with computers, which by the way has spell and punctuation checkers. I once had a biology teacher who emphasized we write our paper and even...get this, our lab report with our hands and with a pencil. It was supposed to encourage proper grammar and spelling but others would argue it was archaic.

I'm sure I've said this in an earlier post on this long-winded thread. Of all the languages that use phonetic writing systems, I believe that English and French are tied for the lowest correlation between spelling and pronunciation. English spelling is a hard enough study for seven-year olds with their agile brains; it is positively daunting for adults who are not native speakers.

As the world continues to shrink and America continues to become home to a greater number of immigants--who we shrilly insist must learn our language or be marginalized--we're going to have to do something about this problem.

Spell checkers are a promising technology, although they have a habit of guessing the wrong word and we have a habit of writing a perfectly good word that just isn't the right one. (BTW, yours would have caught your mangling of "etc.", a simple abbreviation of Latin et cetera, "and the rest". )

In the long run we're going to have to face this problem. Many languages normalized their rules for spelling during the 19th century, including German and Italian. Others did it earlier. The rules for Spanish and Czech, for example, are very straightforward and easy to use. The last time this was done for English was, IIRC, before Shakespeare.