"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! - Page 133 - Other Topics Forum - Discuss Pop Culture, Arts and Entertainment

Two Plus Two Forums 2+2 Communities Other Other Topics

"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode!

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 133 of 247

First

33 83 113 123 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 143 153 183 233

Last

Page 133 of 247

First

33 83 113 123 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 143 153 183 233

Last

04-17-2012 , 10:20 AM

#3301

garcia1000

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 7,853

I think that clarity, flow, and conciseness are more important than, like, some fiddly rule.

Quote

04-17-2012 , 01:56 PM

#3302

DiegoArmando

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 2,737

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

I agree you wouldn't use the comparative with 3 or more things.

I know more about this than all of you punks.

Seems fine to me. Have I misunderstood?

Quote

04-17-2012 , 02:24 PM

#3303

ToTheInternet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 13,876

Quote:

Originally Posted by garcia1000

I think that clarity, flow, and conciseness are more important than, like, some fiddly rule.

The use of "like" as a discourse particle in writing always reminds me of this.

edit: other Trickily Embedded stuff (four links).

Last edited by ToTheInternet; 04-17-2012 at 02:31 PM.

Quote

04-17-2012 , 03:22 PM

#3304

Louis Cyphre

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 10,947

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussellinToronto

An interesting one. "All" takes a plural verb, but is that the subject here? I would say "that" is the subject.

I thought "that remains" is a relative clause modifying "all".

Quote

04-17-2012 , 06:19 PM

#3305

RussellinToronto

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre

I thought "that remains" is a relative clause modifying "all".

You may be right, but I'll still defend the use of "all that remains" as idiomatic. I notice that the author of the recently cited Miriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage writes, "All that remains to be said is..." (959). Surely no one would write "All that remain to be said".

Quote

04-17-2012 , 06:24 PM

#3306

RussellinToronto

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

I don't believe the relaxation of the superlative rule is a corruption. I think it's an elementary school rule teachers use to make things simple for kids but one that proficient adult writers don't need. I agree you wouldn't use the comparative with 3 or more things. But you can use the superlative with two.

It's sort of like the obsolete rule about beginning sentences with conjunctions, which working writers dropped decades ago (but is still taught to kids to keep them from writing run-on sentences). I can find as many citations that consider the superlative rule pedantic and overly formal as you can find supporting it. And some grammar guides state that the superlative can be used when comparing "two or more" things.

Edit: here's one discussion of how grammarians came to use this rule.

Thanks for this posting, especially for the link to Miriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, which seems to be mostly available online for free. One could (or at least a grammar nit could) spend many a profitable hour reading around in that wonderful compendium of language wisdom and common sense (and amusing persnicketiness).

Quote

04-17-2012 , 08:35 PM

#3307

meshanti

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

I don't believe the relaxation of the superlative rule is a corruption. I think it's an elementary school rule teachers use to make things simple for kids but one that proficient adult writers don't need. I agree you wouldn't use the comparative with 3 or more things. But you can use the superlative with two.

It's sort of like the obsolete rule about beginning sentences with conjunctions, which working writers dropped decades ago (but is still taught to kids to keep them from writing run-on sentences). I can find as many citations that consider the superlative rule pedantic and overly formal as you can find supporting it. And some grammar guides state that the superlative can be used when comparing "two or more" things.

That said, your position on it is valid and justifiable, I just disagree.

Edit: here's one discussion of how grammarians came to use this rule.

Touche. And cool link.

It's just something that's tilted me forever. It's like the OP's use of "literally" in the title. It's technically correct because "literally" has been corrupted to the point that it's lost all its meaning. One can use "literally" in any sentence and it would technically be correct.

Quote

04-17-2012 , 10:39 PM

#3308

mikech

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,799

"your head will literally explode" is technically correct?

Quote

04-17-2012 , 10:55 PM

#3309

NewOldGuy

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,935

Quote:

Originally Posted by meshanti

It's like the OP's use of "literally" in the title. It's technically correct because "literally" has been corrupted to the point that it's lost all its meaning. One can use "literally" in any sentence and it would technically be correct.

No it wouldn't. Lots of misuse doesn't make it correct.

Quote

04-17-2012 , 11:49 PM

#3310

meshanti

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikech

"your head will literally explode" is technically correct?

Yes.

From m-w.com:

Quote:

Definition of LITERALLY
2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

Usage Discussion of LITERALLY
Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

Quote

04-17-2012 , 11:59 PM

#3311

meshanti

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

No it wouldn't. Lots of misuse doesn't make it correct.

It does when all that misuse adds a new definition over time.

Quote

04-18-2012 , 12:58 AM

#3312

RussellinToronto

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by meshanti

Source?

Quote

04-18-2012 , 01:06 AM

#3313

meshanti

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussellinToronto

Source?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Quote

04-18-2012 , 04:51 AM

#3314

atakdog

addicted

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 50,136

Even your own source doesn't really support the claim that it is "technically correct": if it is "pure hyperbole", then apparently the technical meaning remains, shockingly enough, what most of us are arguing that it is.

Your argument is that it is acceptable because it is accepted because it is common. Those claims may be true (though some of us disagree with the first one, and clearly the second isn't universally corect), but even assuming arguendo that they are, they don't get us to "technically correct".

Quote

04-18-2012 , 06:53 AM

#3315

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 20,451

Hopefully this will clear things up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...y.html?hpid=z5

Quote

04-18-2012 , 08:56 AM

#3316

NewOldGuy

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,935

While it is true that words take on new meanings and usage over time which sometimes become accepted as standard, people who use the hyperbolic "literally" in the opposite sense of its traditional meaning are literally dumbasses. And I'm using the standard meaning.

Quote

04-18-2012 , 08:58 AM

#3317

Duerig

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,220

They are unintelligent donkeys?

Quote

04-18-2012 , 09:28 AM

#3318

NewOldGuy

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,935

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duerig

They are unintelligent donkeys?

literally

Quote

04-18-2012 , 11:22 AM

#3319

meshanti

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 1,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by atakdog

Even your own source doesn't really support the claim that it is "technically correct": if it is "pure hyperbole", then apparently the technical meaning remains, shockingly enough, what most of us are arguing that it is.

Your argument is that it is acceptable because it is accepted because it is common. Those claims may be true (though some of us disagree with the first one, and clearly the second isn't universally corect), but even assuming arguendo that they are, they don't get us to "technically correct".

Yeah, it does. "Literally" means actual or figurative: it has no meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

It's in the dictionary; what else can I say?

It's like the word "decimated" (as another poster mentioned). "Decimated" used to mean one thing, now it means obliterated as well, through misuse. And it tilts the *** out of me to hear it used that way.

Quote

04-18-2012 , 11:32 AM

#3320

pwnsall

CFBBPC

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 66,212

meshanit is right, like, always

Quote

04-18-2012 , 12:48 PM

#3321

NewOldGuy

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,935

Quote:

Originally Posted by meshanti

It's in the dictionary; what else can I say?

Dictionaries are sometimes more descriptive than prescriptive. They are telling you what lots of people are saying, but not necessarily that they are saying it correctly. For that I would refer to contemporary usage guides and style guides.

Here's a humorous collection of quotes which demonstrates that, at the very least, the hyperbolic "literally" should be used with extreme care.

http://literally.barelyfitz.com/

Last edited by NewOldGuy; 04-18-2012 at 01:03 PM.