Comments on: The Sunday Papers

By: Formal dress

Formal dress — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:39:47 +0000

It is very good post.I like to read it.

By: Formal dress

Formal dress — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 02:37:32 +0000

Nice post. This post is different from what I read on most blog. And it have so many valuable things to learn. Thank you for your sharing!

By: Darkfall gold

Darkfall gold — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:29:37 +0000

It is very good post.I like to read it.

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:47:16 +0000

Yes, yes, I read the thing about your holiday hiatus… But I still check RPS twice daily, just in case! Please come back?

By: manveruppd

manveruppd — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:38:15 +0000

@invisiblejesus: that’s the whole descriptive vs. prescriptive argument again, in which, despite generally being a pedant, I tend to lean on the descriptive side as long as it doesn’t hinder understanding. But if you do a simple google search you’ll find plenty of serious writers liberally (ab)using catachresis as a literary or rhetorical device, so I think I have support in this.

@Hattered: You’re precicely right, that the phrase “exploded with rage” has become so commonplace it can no longer convey the sheer scale of frustration people feel when they use it. But perhaps by intensifying it with literally they’re allowing themselves to vent _just enough_ to NOT literally explode. Until someone says “I want to explode with rage” without modifying it with “literally” and DOES explode, we can’t be sure that it’s not the extra pressure valve of adding “literally” which is stopping everyone else from exploding! :) Witness the Great Blast of ’84, in which Optimus Prime literally exploded with rage, immolating the entire Decepticon army that had surrounded him. As the Autobots mourn the ultimate sacrifice of their great leader, would you discriminate against Earth’s robo-citizens from beyond the stars by mocking those who pay humble homage to him through their speech patters? :)

By: Hattered

Hattered — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:15:09 +0000

@This “literally” nonsense:
Language is (as are most things, of course) more than the rules used to model it. The inclusion of “literally” alters the immediate interpretation of the phrase. Modifying “exploded with rage”, its usual purpose would be to incite an image of the subject actually exploding, possibly into little bits, rather than that of just becoming emotional. The user of “literally” is attempting to override the reader/listener’s instinctively figurative interpretation of the phrase. The use of “figuratively” isn’t expected to have the same effect, being an admission that the phrase is not to be taken as stated, and is redundant.

That said, it seems to most often be used to modify clichéd phrases like “exploded with rage” which have lost their impact. It is, literally, a crutch and generally indicates the user understands the phrase is weak. It also allows for the ridicule of the user, as in the David Cross bit about the guy saying he literally s*** his pants. Its use is acceptable, but not advised. (Please note, the opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the English language.)

By: invisiblejesus

invisiblejesus — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:40:52 +0000

@manveruppd

The definition of catachresis, taken from http://www.dictionary.com:

n. pl. cat·a·chre·ses (-sēz)

1.

The misapplication of a word or phrase, as the use of blatant to mean “flagrant.”
2.

The use of a strained figure of speech, such as a mixed metaphor.

So yes, you are correct. This is in instance of the misapplication of a word. That’s not something that a serious writer should be aiming to do, especially when the misapplication in question results in them saying the opposite of what they mean to say.

By: manveruppd

manveruppd — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:14:45 +0000

@invisiblejesus: there is in fact a specific kind of rhetorical device which involves using words in an extravagant and counter-intuitive (metaphorical) manner, and it’s called “catachresis”. I think this would count as an instance of that.

By: WFL

WFL — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:28:01 +0000

Wish I could take this kind of vacation (I work in the newspaper industry).

By: AndrewC

AndrewC — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:53:45 +0000

It remains my opinion that ‘hyperbole’ has three syllables. Also, I reject it.

By: invisiblejesus

invisiblejesus — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:45:09 +0000

It’s not so much that, Gap Gen, at least for me. It’s that a) the word doesn’t convey any meaning, even metaphorical (it’s different from “I exploded with rage” in Kieron’s example because “exploded” conveys an easily understandable sense of the person’s behavior and state of mind as a result of his rage, while the meaning of “literally” has nothing whatsoever to do with emphasis at all), b) “literally” isn’t just not strictly correct, it’s meaning is the exact opposite of what people are often saying, and c) frankly I’m not convinced that most writers and speakers actually know they’re using the word improperly.

Obviously, this all doesn’t apply if the word is being used ironically, but in most cases it’s not.

By: Gap Gen

Gap Gen — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:03:49 +0000

I love hyperbole. I love it so much that I will find the next person who rejects it and tear their fucking head off to use as a waste paper bin. Literally.

I think there’s a danger of a certain phrase becoming cliched through over-use, which is possibly why people are angry at ‘literally’. Otherwise, I don’t see the problem at non-literal use of language.