Musings in Search of a Muse

Like most people, I have pet peeves, though most of mine involve language. Some I have managed to break (like saying "samwhich" as most people do) in myself, but not in others. Very few of these peeves are truly grating. But one is. Literally so, most would say. And therein lies the source.

According to Dictionary.com, "literally" means

1. In a literal manner; word for word: translated the Greek passage literally.
2. In a literal or strict sense: Don't take my remarks literally.

The site notes that poor usage of this word is common. Most people use it as a synonym for "really" or for "actually" or as an intensifier for figurative expressions. The editors continue:

Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of “in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words.” In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example “The 300,000 Unionists... will be literally thrown to the wolves.” The practice does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itselfif it did, the word would long since have come to mean “virtually” or “figuratively” but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive, as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended.

As noted, this problem has been around for some time. But a couple recent finds on the Web started to change my peeve from pet to pest. Consider:

"There is a lot of energy generated by aircraft that is literally dumped overboard," said Gerard Schkolnik of NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, Calif. (source)

So by the meaning of this construct we can readily picture someone or a few someones poised at the side of the craft with buckets containing some form of energy and waiting for a cue to begin the process. Clearly Mr. Schkolnik took English as an elective in college.

On the same day I came across this example:

Researchers in England have developed a thick plastic "skin" that would literally cover the familiar ATMs and act as a shield against unauthorized tampering. (source)

Literally cover, then, as opposed to covering how? Unliterally? Unilaterally?

Another of my pet peeves was also aroused when I saw a Web site that should be proud of a basis in technology describe a product for sale.

Amazing Money Jar Bank -- Discovery Channel Store -- 705756: "Product Detail:

Save those pennies and dimes! This unique jar recognizes coins as they go in and keeps a running total of their value. A special LCD display in the lid tells you exactly how much you've saved. And fun, magical designs on the jar and lid make this a very special place for kids to stash their money.

Features:

* Recognizes the value of each coin (U.S. currency only)
* Adds your coins as you drop them in
* LCD display with running total

Seeing the total rise encourages children to save their money. The sturdy plastic jar provides a safe, non-breakable alternative to the traditional piggy bank."

If you didn't catch it, let me remind you that the D in LCD represents display. Using "LCD display" is redundant. Better usage? Try "Liquid Crystal Display" or "LCD panel" instead.

I am all for the evolution of language, but I believe that a priority should be correct usage. Enough said. Go about your business, there's nothing to see here.

For your consideration:

• Word origins
• How many words in the English language?
• The Oxford English Dictionary
• The Language Guy
• The Urban Dictionary and their take on literally (explict language used)