Wednesday, January 31, 2001
11:51 pm
Literally speaking
I'm going to get on to my mail box, and my book reviews soon, I promise. Any way today I'll have a general go about sloppiness. I was reading today a missive from a salesman saying that he had "been literally torn apart" at some meeting with a potential client. Now literally to me means that the metaphor button is switched off (not literally as there is no such thing as a metaphor button). If you were literally torn apart you would have at least a couple of limbs missing, and e-mail would be problematic. It seems to mean "I'm not exageratting, it was really bad". Fine, but don't use that word.
Any way a couple of years ago I got an e-mail from someone responding to my reporting a particular Blair violation of our liberties, saying that "my blood is literally boiling". That must be painful.
The literally peerless Sean Gabb writes an excellent piece on the close correalation of mixed metaphors and sloppy thinking here.
One day I'll talk about my brush with fundamentalism, and why it's so important for the word literal to retain its proper meaning. I'll also write about foreign policy some time.
PS. I hate postscripts as well. In this age of word processors you don't need them. I mean I don't want to get all Ayn Rand on you people, but post scripts were all well and good in an age when you couldn't go back to your written or type-written letter and insert a short paragraph. It just showed a disorganised mind. Now you can edit things once you've written them. Postscripts are no longer a sign of a sloppy mind but of an insincere nature.
An endorsement
It's from The Raimondo;
Oh, and I did indeed look at your weblog and have been reading it since aEric put it up. It hits just the right tone of informality, and is very valuable. I'm sure it's going to be popular with our readers, and expand the audience for your column.
See, now you'd better tell all your friends. That's five people who read the web log.
I'm going to get on to my mail box, and my book reviews soon, I promise. Any way today I'll have a general go about sloppiness. I was reading today a missive from a salesman saying that he had "been literally torn apart" at some meeting with a potential client. Now literally to me means that the metaphor button is switched off (not literally as there is no such thing as a metaphor button). If you were literally torn apart you would have at least a couple of limbs missing, and e-mail would be problematic. It seems to mean "I'm not exageratting, it was really bad". Fine, but don't use that word.
Any way a couple of years ago I got an e-mail from someone responding to my reporting a particular Blair violation of our liberties, saying that "my blood is literally boiling". That must be painful.
The literally peerless Sean Gabb writes an excellent piece on the close correalation of mixed metaphors and sloppy thinking here.
One day I'll talk about my brush with fundamentalism, and why it's so important for the word literal to retain its proper meaning. I'll also write about foreign policy some time.
PS. I hate postscripts as well. In this age of word processors you don't need them. I mean I don't want to get all Ayn Rand on you people, but post scripts were all well and good in an age when you couldn't go back to your written or type-written letter and insert a short paragraph. It just showed a disorganised mind. Now you can edit things once you've written them. Postscripts are no longer a sign of a sloppy mind but of an insincere nature.
An endorsement
It's from The Raimondo;
Oh, and I did indeed look at your weblog and have been reading it since a
See, now you'd better tell all your friends. That's five people who read the web log.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2001
(202)
-
▼
January
(31)
- Literally speakingI'm going to get on to my mail b...
- I'm not writing much today, expecting you to have ...
- Proffessor John Charmley's book, Churchill: The En...
- Correction.Firstly a correction about Dr. John Rei...
- Airstrip One DailyIf you like Airstrip One and thi...
- One thing I did not see when I wrote my piece on P...
- Union NowThe marvelous thing about the internet is...
- A couple of stories from Stratfor:Eastern Kosovo l...
- The European Foundation Intelligence Digest has a ...
- Saddam must Go! Oh boy, this is one of the worst ...
- The Mandelson Affair - What does it mean for Briti...
- Postbox timeSomething old, something new. A hosti...
- Sean Gabb's masterpieceThat prominent British Libe...
- Thanks to Sam Koritz for proof reading this site. ...
- A rather technical review of a rather technical bo...
- An entertaining piece on the overspending of the A...
- The Israeli situation means that we may be sending...
- Excellent piece from Simon Jenkins on air warefare...
- Some response - at last.My piece on the remnants o...
- Dates for your diary:Committee for Peace in the Ba...
- Who Governs?The stupid and needless prosecution of...
- Little response to my column on withdrawing from t...
- CriticismIn the antiwar club there is some so-so c...
- Sovereignty and Liberty. Italy wants foreign net ...
- Depleted UraniumThis is from the antiwar.com club,...
- So? In an otherwise good piece in the National Re...
- Echelon, scmechelon. An interesting article on Ec...
- Such nice peopleThis article below comes from the ...
- Sea LanesIt wasn't my fault, honest guv.A poor cor...
- Postbox timeCan you help?This came up in my postbo...
- What is the point of this web log?You may well ask...
-
▼
January
(31)
0 comments:
Post a Comment