Why Grammar Matters: A Place To Discuss Matters Of Grammar

[ToxicUnicorn]

Here's a question: is "concerning" really an adjective?  As in, "this is concerning"?  Each time I hear it, it makes me want to shake my head - the way my dog does when he has ear mites.

 

I've been hearing it on tv a lot lately.

Edited July 3, 2015 by ToxicUnicorn

[Cobalt Stargazer]

According to one of my fellow grammar nerds, yes, 'concerning' is an adjective. "A cause for concern" would be more grammatically correct, but "this is concerning" is also acceptable.

[shapeshifter]

Here's a question: is "concerning" really an adjective?  As in, "this is concerning"?  Each time I hear it, it makes me want to shake my head - the way my dog does when he has ear mites.

 

I've been hearing it on tv a lot lately.

According to the online OED (Oxford English Dictionary), although "concerning" can be used as an adjective, this use is considered to be a preposition (yeah, I know), with the earliest recorded example from 1425. Shakespeare used it this way too:

a1425 T. Rymer Fœdera IX. 918/1 In all manere of thynges concernyng th' Exercice of Governance.

1503–4 Act 19 Hen. VII c. 35 §2 All the evydences chartres and munymentes concernyng the premysses.

1526 W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection Pref. sig. Aiv, The sentences of illumined doctours, concernyng perfeccion.

1569 R. Grafton Chron. II. 74 To enquire out the matter concernyng them that were consentyng to Beckets death.

a1616 Shakespeare Henry V (1623) i. ii. 6 Some things of weight that taske our thoughts, concerning vs and France.

a1616 Shakespeare Twelfth Night (1623) iv. ii. 50 What is the opinion of Pythagoras concerning Wilde-fowle?

1625 Bacon Ess. (new ed.) 10 We shall therefore speake, a few words, concerning the Unity of the Church.

1689 R. Milward Selden's Table-talk 1 A Law concerning Leather, or any other Commodity.

1765 J. Wilkes Corr. (1805) II. 204 As to all my proceedings here concerning the press.

"Concerning" has a very lengthy entry in the OED; this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg on its use as a preposition.

[bilgistic]

I'm fine with "concerning". What I don't accept is the use of "addicting" when "addictive" exists. It gives me Hulk rage to see/hear "This [insert name of TV show/food/drug] is addicting!"

[Rick Kitchen]

The CW runs a commercial for its shows that runs several lines with "We Defy..." "We Defy History" (showing scenes from their crappy ahistorical "Reign" show), etc.  But the one that has me wondering what the heck they're trying to say is "We Defy To Be Ignored".  Eh?

[Sandman87]

"We Defy To Be Ignored"

Perhaps "We Defy Grammar" would be more appropriate.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

Not "We Defy To Be Grammatical"?

[shapeshifter]

Not "We Defy To Be Grammatical"?

Nooooooo!

[Actionmage]

I just saw a What's My Line? episode, where a lawyer in Buffalo, NY wrote in and wanted to politely argue grammar!  The gentleman from Buffalo thought the usual phrasing ( in the panel introductions) of " ... and on my left..." was incorrect.  He thought that "at" was more appropriate. Mr. Daly, the host/moderator and a newsman as well, was uncertain and wanted to confer with someone. Still, the panel, starting with Mr. Allen, used "at" for the rest of the show ( intros and good-nights.)

 

I immediately thought of this board and grinned.

 

 

Then Buzzr went and harshed my mellow with their ad for this block of shows ( To Tell The Truth/ What's My Line? / I've Got A Secret). The trying-to-sound-50s-hipster voice over tells of how somethings were cool/cooler then, like bowties. For these examples, they have accompanying footage of the same ( like men in snappy formal bowties.) Just before the end, the voice over guy says, " TV was never this cool."  Hello? You just showed me it was, dude. 

 

Part of me feels that this was meant to make that era feel more "mythical"; that it was so long ago that mere game shows were not only cool and hip but classy, too. Yet all I hear is "never" and I get angry at the person who wrote that lie. 

[Sandman87]

" TV was never this cool." Hello? You just showed me it was, dude.

Reminds me of a line from a cartoon: "I'm not as dumb as I really am!"

[HonestlyWTF]

I just heard Christina in Flip or Flop say "A whole nother" in her annoying vocal fry. She needs speech and language therapy big time.

Edited July 15, 2015 by HonestlyWTF

[Rick Kitchen]

I just heard Christina in Flip or Flip say "A whole nother" in her annoying vocal fry. She needs speech and language therapy big time.

 

That's become a thing.

[legaleagle53]

A whole nother thing, even!

Edited July 15, 2015 by legaleagle53

[shapeshifter]

A whole nother thing, even!

legaleagle53, I am shocked to see you post that!

To what is this world coming?

Edited July 17, 2015 by shapeshifter

[legaleagle53]

legaleagle53, I am shocked to see you post that!

To what is this world coming?

 

Now, that is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put!

[Sandman87]

I approve of the recent Heineken ad with Neil Patrick Harris which pokes fun at the use of literally. "We are literally putting our money where our mouth is...wait...what? No...that's...I would literally not do that."

Not only does the ad indicate that there may be some hope for the world after all, but it's the first thing I've ever seen with NPH that didn't bore me to tears.

[Moose135]

I wonder if someone at their ad agency reads this forum?

[shapeshifter]

I wonder if someone at their ad agency reads this forum?

Not likely. I think it was just because NPH's character on the seven-season HIMYM comedy had a running gag using the word "literally."

[MyAimIsTrue]

An ex-boyfriend of mine who was highly educated with multiple advanced degrees used "literally" in the figuratively sense all the time.  It drove me batshit crazy.  We didn't break up over it, though I once thought about it...

[Moose135]

Not likely. I think it was just because NPH's character on the seven-season HIMYM comedy had a running gag using the word "literally."

Thanks - the number of episodes of HIMYM I've watched could be counted on one hand, and you would literally have 5 fingers left over.

[Haleth]

^ That made me laugh out loud.  Literally.

[Rick Kitchen]

Ugh, the local news anchor just said, "People come to the river to recreate."  Re-create what?  REC-reate isn't a word.

[legaleagle53]

Ugh, the local news anchor just said, "People come to the river to recreate."  Re-create what?  REC-reate isn't a word.

 

Actually, it is, according to Merriam-Webster.  It has a primary meaning as a transitive verb meaning "to give new life or freshness to"  and a secondary meaning as an intransitive verb meaning "to take recreation" and has been in use since the 15th Century.  And yes, in both uses, it is pronounced "RE-cre-ate" (with a short "e" in the first syllable).

Edited July 23, 2015 by legaleagle53

[MaryPatShelby]

Whilst. Is killing me.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "while", and we are not in Merry Olde England.  Please American Society, stop trying to make whilst happen.

[legaleagle53]

Whilst. Is killing me.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "while", and we are not in Merry Olde England.  Please American Society, stop trying to make whilst happen.

 

While it may sound archaic to American ears, there is nothing "olde" about its use, nor is its use restricted to England, although Merriam-Webster does note that its use is chiefly British.  That said, it does come across as an affectation on this side of the pond, so on that account, knock it off, America.  Whom are you trying to impress?  

[Sandman87]

Tonight the PBS Newshour did a story about the "Chat Tanooga Shooting." At least that's what the caption said.

[linz15]

I'm wondering if anyone has heard of the following rule?

I have some acquaintances who insist "literally" can only be used when you mean that a generally figurative expression actually happened. It's not to be used to mean actually in a more general sense as an intensifier (I was literally driving down the highway") but only to be used when you want to clarify that a normally figurative expression actually happened (as in "Little Women" - "the land literally flowed with milk and honey on such occasions").

I've only ever seen the admonishment to not use literally when you actually mean figuratively ("I have such a horrible headache, my head is literally going to explode"). I have never heard of this supposed rule and so was looking for other opinions and/or a source for this rule. OED defines literally to mean actually and I've seen it used as an intensifier my entire life so this rule struck me as odd.

[legaleagle53]

I'm wondering if anyone has heard of the following rule?

I have some acquaintances who insist "literally" can only be used when you mean that a generally figurative expression actually happened. It's not to be used to mean actually in a more general sense as an intensifier (I was literally driving down the highway") but only to be used when you want to clarify that a normally figurative expression actually happened (as in "Little Women" - "the land literally flowed with milk and honey on such occasions").

I've only ever seen the admonishment to not use literally when you actually mean figuratively ("I have such a horrible headache, my head is literally going to explode"). I have never heard of this supposed rule and so was looking for other opinions and/or a source for this rule. OED defines literally to mean actually and I've seen it used as an intensifier my entire life so this rule struck me as odd.

 

The rule (which, in fact, is why this thread bears the name it does) supposedly is that "literally" should only be used when the described event actually happened exactly as described, which is the original sense of the word.  Using it figuratively is derided as being illogical on that ground.

 

However, modern usage seems to have conceded that the word can now be used in both its original sense and in the more common figurative sense.  I guess grammarians have finally learned the lesson that words and even some fixed expressions do change meaning over time.  

 

For example, in 2015, we can say "The wily brat, the villain's son, was a crafty counterfeiter," and an extremely negative image of the kid forms in our mind.  An English speaker of 1015, however, would be shocked by our interpretation of the sentence, because to him or her, it simply means, "The clever child, the serf's son, was a skillful imitator" -- an altogether different image.  That's the nature of language evolution, and the same process appears to be happening with "literally."  In 3015, English speakers will be hard-put to imagine the word being used in any other sense than "figuratively."

[StatisticalOutlier]

What I want to know is why, if it takes 1,000 years for these changes to take place, I have the misfortune to exist when it's at the annoying stage. 

[linz15]

Sorry maybe my post wasn't clear.

The rule (which, in fact, is why this thread bears the name it does) supposedly is that "literally" should only be used when the described event actually happened exactly as described, which is the original sense of the word. Using it figuratively is derided as being illogical on that ground.

Yes, this is the rule as I've always understood it as well. These acquaintances of mine are stating you may only use literally in one situation - when you want to clarify that a figurative expression/saying actually happened. For example - "he was so mad, he literally hit the ceiling." Generally people don't hit the ceiling, so you're using literally to convey that he actually hit the ceiling. This is apparently the only correct usage whereas you are not supposed to use literally when you simply mean actually. "I was literally just talking to him" would then be incorrect even if you were actually just talking to him since taking literally out of the sentence doesn't change the meaning. I responded that it may be superfluous but I don't think it's an incorrect use of the word.

I had just never heard of this distinction and was wondering if others had.

[shapeshifter]

Thank you, legaleagle53, for your perfect post on the current views of literally.

What I want to know is why, if it takes 1,000 years for these changes to take place, I have the misfortune to exist when it's at the annoying stage.

Hee! This could be a great theme for a layman's book of linguistics--a best seller even!

Sorry maybe my post wasn't clear.

Yes, this is the rule as I've always understood it as well. These acquaintances of mine are stating you may only use literally in one situation - when you want to clarify that a figurative expression/saying actually happened. For example - "he was so mad, he literally hit the ceiling." Generally people don't hit the ceiling, so you're using literally to convey that he actually hit the ceiling. This is apparently the only correct usage whereas you are not supposed to use literally when you simply mean actually. "I was literally just talking to him" would then be incorrect even if you were actually just talking to him since taking literally out of the sentence doesn't change the meaning. I responded that it may be superfluous but I don't think it's an incorrect use of the word.

I had just never heard of this distinction and was wondering if others had.

ETA: Having read the post below by backformore and found the original Little Women reference, it seems like a reasonable suggestion for writing and more formal speaking.

Then Jo and Meg, with a detachment of the bigger boys, set forth the supper on the grass, for an out-of-door tea was always the crowning joy of the day. The land literally flowed with milk and honey on such occasions, for the lads were not required to sit at table, but allowed to partake of refreshment as they liked freedom being the sauce best beloved by the boyish soul.

And I apologize for not reading linz15's examples more closely.

Is it possible thatYour acquaintances were teasing you?Your acquaintances were confused?Your acquaintances were drunk or otherwise incapacitated?You misunderstood them?You and your acquaintances were drunk or otherwise incapacitated?Your acquaintances are representative of the next new wave of thinking on this topic (see the last paragraph of legaleagle53's post above)

Edited July 25, 2015 by shapeshifter

[legaleagle53]

 

Thank you, legaleagle53, for your perfect post on the current views of literally.

 

You are most welcome.  I haven't spent the past 41 years studying 19 different languages (including Old English) for nothing!  ;-)

[Sandman87]

From a local news story about a historic tree in a nearby town that split in half: "The half that broke off will be removed, while the other half will try to be salvaged." I didn't realize that half of a tree is even capable of conscious effort. Bonus points are assigned for the gratuitous passive verb being used.

[backformore]

I'm wondering if anyone has heard of the following rule?

I have some acquaintances who insist "literally" can only be used when you mean that a generally figurative expression actually happened. It's not to be used to mean actually in a more general sense as an intensifier (I was literally driving down the highway") but only to be used when you want to clarify that a normally figurative expression actually happened (as in "Little Women" - "the land literally flowed with milk and honey on such occasions").

I haven't heard that as a "rule", but it makes sense.   I think it's being misinterpreted on this thread.  Your friends are saying that one should only add "literally"  when wanting to convey, "I don't mean this figuratively".  The word should be used sparingly, not just inserted into conversations.   So, you wouldn't say that you LITERALLY drove to the grocery store, because of course, if you drove to the store, you mean that literally. 

But you might say "I got my shopping done in LITERALLY two minutes"  when you want to emphasize that it took 120 seconds, not the figurative use of 2 minutes, "a very short time". 

I don't think your friends' rule is LITERALLY a rule, but I like it anyway. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by backformore

[Sandman87]

I once lived in a beach-front home, littorally.

 

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

[JocelynCavanaugh]

"Re-gyn-a" is the city in Canada, and is also the correct pronunciation of the Latin word for "Queen".

The proper Latin pronunciation is Ray-gee-na, with a hard G. There is no soft g/j sound in Latin. I took Latin for eight years, including a college minor.

[legaleagle53]

The proper Latin pronunciation is Ray-gee-na, with a hard G. There is no soft g/j sound in Latin. I took Latin for eight years, including a college minor.

 

Et ego linguam latinam studio per quadraginti annos, et iam correxi errorem abhinc multas paginas.  (I also have been studying Latin for 40 years, and I already corrected the error many pages ago.)

 

Sorry -- I just couldn't resist!  ;-)

Edited July 27, 2015 by legaleagle53

[JocelynCavanaugh]

Et ego linguam latinam studio per quadraginti annos, et iam correxi errorem abhinc multas paginas. (I also have been studying Latin for 40 years, and I already corrected the error many pages ago.)

Sorry -- I just couldn't resist! ;-)

Yeah, sorry about that. I looked for it but didn't scroll far enough.

[Bastet]

I haven't heard that as a "rule", but it makes sense.   I think it's being misinterpreted on this thread.  Your friends are saying that one should only add "literally"  when wanting to convey, "I don't mean this figuratively".  The word should be used sparingly, not just inserted into conversations.   So, you wouldn't say that you LITERALLY drove to the grocery store, because of course, if you drove to the store, you mean that literally.

But you might say "I got my shopping done in LITERALLY two minutes"  when you want to emphasize that it took 120 seconds, not the figurative use of 2 minutes, "a very short time".

 

Same here -- I've never heard any "official" rule that literally should only be used under such circumstances (and its definition certainly does not limit its use in that way), yet that has always been a personal guideline.  Why would I bother to specify that I literally did something unless I'm describing something that would normally be interpreted as a figurative or hyperbolic declaration?  Otherwise, the literally is implied (and thus superfluous).

Edited July 27, 2015 by Bastet

[AuntiePam]

Well, now I'm really confused. 

 

So it's okay for Nancy Grace to say that something "literally made my head explode"?  That's still wrong -- isn't it?

[Rick Kitchen]

Anything Nancy Grace says is wrong.

[Quof]

So it's okay for Nancy Grace to say that something "literally made my head explode"?

I'm picturing her head literally exploding, and applauding.

[Bastet]

Well, now I'm really confused.

 

So it's okay for Nancy Grace to say that something "literally made my head explode"?  That's still wrong -- isn't it?

 

If Nancy Grace is still sitting there with her head intact, she shouldn't be saying it "literally" exploded.  But that's not the kind of scenario being discussed.  The scenario being discussed is one in which her head really did explode.  If I told someone, "Nancy Grace's head just exploded," they'd logically assume I was speaking figuratively.  So that's a situation in which I'd add literally -- because I'm using an expression that is normally used figuratively, so I'm emphasizing that, in this case, it actually happened. 

 

To bring it back to a more plausible scenario like the ones being discussed, let's say Nancy Grace watched a clip of something and then banged her head on the desk.  If I say "Nancy Grace was banging her head on the desk in response to that clip," you might take that either literally or figuratively.  So I would say she was "literally banging her head on the desk" to clarify.

 

But I would never use "literally" to describe something that everyone would know by the context was literal ("I literally watched Nancy Grace's show tonight"); it's totally unnecessary.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Bastet

[AuntiePam]

 

But I would never use "literally" to describe something that everyone would know by the context was literal ("I literally watched Nancy Grace's show tonight"); it's totally unnecessary.

 

Ahhhh -- now I get it.  Thank you.

[shapeshifter]

And yet, given Nancy Grace's audience, it is "appropriate" (if not entirely grammatically correct) for her to say something made her head explode even though she still has a head on her shoulders.

[Qoass]

 

However, modern usage seems to have conceded that the word can now be used in both its original sense and in the more common figurative sense.  I guess grammarians have finally learned the lesson that words and even some fixed expressions do change meaning over time.

 

That's why I cringe whenever I hear someone use the word "presently" as a synonym for "currently".  For a period, "presently" meant "in the near future" but now it can mean both that and "right now".  It changes the meanings of things written back in the day.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Qoass

[ByTor]

I hate, hate, hate when people refer to "throwing shade" on someone.  It started with the younger crowd, but now I even hear newscasters saying it. 

May I add to that (fill-in-the-blank)-shame?  Fat shame...slut shame...skinny shame.  Makes my teeth itch!

[Shannon L.]

 

I hate, hate, hate when people refer to "throwing shade" on someone.  It started with the younger crowd, but now I even hear newscasters saying it.

May I add to that (fill-in-the-blank)-shame?  Fat shame...slut shame...skinny shame.  Makes my teeth itch!

I'd like to add "hit me in the feels".  I'm hearing it more often and I hate it. 

[Sandman87]

I'd like to add "hit me in the feels". I'm hearing it more often and I hate it.

This is the first time I've heard of it. On what shows have people been saying that? I need to know so I can avoid them some more.

[Shannon L.]

 

This is the first time I've heard of it. On what shows have people been saying that? I need to know so I can avoid them some more.

I'm sorry--this thread tends to make me forget that we're talking about tv.  I haven't heard it on any of my shows, but I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up on tv eventually.