Skunked Terms

Are you confused by amused and bemused?

If so you're not alone. Bemused is one of those words whose meaning is shifting. Nonplussed is another. So is decimated of which I have previously written (somewhere I think - can't find it now).

Ironically the original meaning of both bemused and nonplussed is "perplexed", "bewildered" or "confused". Both words have since taken on different meanings which sorely perplexes those of us who actually know what the words are supposed to mean. Bemused is now often used to mean "slightly amused" and nonplussed to mean "unfazed". Methinks that it's the people giving them the new meanings that are confused.

How can such new and different meanings arise? Too easily, I'm afraid. People hear words they don't know and - instead of looking them up - guess their meanings based on context and in many cases by the meaning of similar sounding words (e.g. bemused, amused). Then they start using their newly acquired word in conversation and their equally ignorant (in the literal sense of the word) friends pick up the intended meaning from context, and away it goes. Spreading like cancer.

Thanks to my wife Donna for finding this 2008 article by Ben Zimmer: in thevisualthesaurus.com

Bryan Garner in his book "Garner's Modern American Usage" defines these as "skunked terms" and describes two groups of their users. Group 1 maintains the traditional meaning while Group 2 adopts the modern usage.

Zimmer asks his readers which group they fall in - traditional or modern - or both. He then suggests that when clarity is important the best strategy is to avoid these terms altogether.

But as one of his readers points out in a comment, if Group 1 (who knows the original meaning) avoids using the skunked terms, then Group 2 wins by default, and the meaning will shift. Only if Group 1 sticks to their guns and (to mix a few metaphors) with constant vigilance maintains the right [meaning], can the word survive in it's original sense. At some point the battle is lost (as I fear it is for decimate) and there is no turning back.

I have a foot in both camps. On one hand (to mix anatomical metaphors) I understand that language changes, and that this is neither good or bad in itself; on the other hand it grates on the nerves to see it happen.

Unlike the Queen, "We are all bemused!"

"Literally" drives me crazy

The misuse of "literally" drives me crazy. Well, figuratively that is. I haven't had to see a psychiatrist (or even a psychologist) about it and haven't yet had to take one of my herbal/vitamin stress formula tabs because of it. But it is annoying, frustrating and downright irritating (but not aggravating which means to make an existing condition worse, as in "typing long blog posts aggravates my carpal tunnel syndrome", and which is often misused for irritating which means, figuratively, to do to your mind what a mosquito bite does to your skin - but I digress...).

The point I'm making here is that literally means "according to the exact meaning of a word". So if you hear that a friend "literally died laughing" you should make plans to attend the funeral.

Literally is apparently a favorite pet peeve of a large number of people. Chris Bucholz chose literally as #1 of 7 "grammar errors that aren't" in a post on his cracked.com blog. After explaining that literally is often used to mean just the opposite - that a gross exaggeration is implied and expected to be understood - he goes on to defend it as a natural change in word meaning. He's a brave man, but makes several good points. One point is historical use by famous authors for which he refers his readers to another good article on literally in the e-zine Slate. The other is that, though it may (figuratively) grate on our nerves, we are forced to admit that in nearly all cases we do know what they mean. Chris hastens to assure us that he is by no means condoning this misuse of literally, which as he puts it is "...a weak, even cliched way of emphasizing something...", he is just advocating a bit more tolerance. 

There is even a blog, called "Literally, A Web Log", devoted exclusively to the abuse of the word literally. The authors Patrick Fitzgerald and Amber Rhea list three categories of uses for the word:

Incorrect

Incorrect usage of “literally”. For example, “I literally dropped dead when I heard the news”.

Unnecessary

Using “literally” when it is not needed. For example, “I literally lost hundreds of dollars in Vegas”.

Correct

A particularly good example of using “literally”. For example, “I literally bought the farm” to mean an exchange of money (not a loss of life).

The authors and readers post examples from news and other media of the use and misuse of literally. The website has 22 links to other websites on the subject. In 2009 the authors moved to a Facebook page where they continue to document misuses of literally. 

The Slate article - "The Word We Love to Hate - Literally" - is more scholarly and well researched. The history of the change in meaning is carefully documented. Towards the end of the 17th century "literally" was being used to emphasize true statements by writers, including Alexander Pope and Jane Austen. One hundred years later, by the end of the 18th century, "literally" was being used to emphasize statements which were figurative or metaphorical in nature. Authors guilty of this grammatical sin include: Louisa May Alcott, Mark Twain, F. Scott Fitzgerald, James Joyce, James Fenimore Cooper, William M. Thackeray, Charles Dickens and Henry David Thoreau. Surprisingly it wasn't until the early 20th century that grammarians began to protest the misuse of the word. The article goes on to explain that literally has become just another contranym - a word with two opposite meanings - like cleave (to separate / to stick together) or scan (to read thoroughly / to skim quickly). 

So why does the misuse of literally stick in our craw (figuratively), when we overlook equally misused words like aggravate and scan? I don't really know. One of the reasons could be the feeling of self-satisfaction we experience when we know something someone else doesn't - like the actual meaning of the word "literally". Our feigned indignation may be merely our way of pointing out to others (and ourselves) how superior we are. In fact I suspect this is behind most grammarian sticklerism.

But if I hear one more person use literally for figuratively, I may scream. Literally. So plug your ears!

The Plural Apostrophe

I ended the last post with my observation that  all changes to language are fine and acceptable – except for the ones I don’t like. This provides a useful introduction to discuss some of my own pet language peeves. 

I'll start with my favorite "love to hate" punctuation error, the  "plural apostrophe". In England it is sometimes called the "greengrocer's apostrophe" from the habit of grocery store managers (or at least their sign-writers) who write signs like "Cucumber's $1.00" and "Banana's $1.50/lb".

The rule is so simple ("apostrophe-s" is used to show possessive) that I simply can't understand how so many people get the idea that all plurals ending in "s" need an apostrophe. Richard Lederer and John Shore in the apostrophe chapter of Comma Sense discuss the misuse of apostrophes in house signs and mailboxes. Mailboxes commonly have people's names like "The Smith's" and "William's". The second example is doubly in error because, since the mailbox presumably belongs to a family with surname Williams, the apostrophe, which shouldn't be there to start with, is in the wrong place. But at least Williams looks like a plural word. Some go beyond the plural apostrophe and feel that no word ending in "s" should be allowed to go apostrophe-less. To continue the mailbox example, we sometimes even get "Jone's". Aaaarrrrgggghhh!!!

Now here's an interesting example of my own: 
a) I am going to Smiths.
b) I am going to Smiths'.
c) I am going to Smith's.

This sentence leaves out some words that are implied or meant to be understood. Each of these sentences could be correct, depending on the words left out. Here are the full sentences with explanations:
a) I am going to visit the Smiths. (a family with surname Smith)
b) I am going to the Smiths' house. (the house belongs to a family named Smith)
c) I am going to Smith's house. (the house belongs to a guy named or nicknamed Smith)

To give the plural apostrophe writers a bit of a break, there are examples when an apostrophe-s  is used to show plural. However, these situations are extremely rare and can't have spawned the ubiquitous plural apostrophes (can they?). Anyway, here they are:
- the plural of letters and numbers: "Mind your p's and q's" and "How many 3's are in your phone number?" Apostrophes, however, are not needed for the plural of dates or acronyms e.g. 1900s and DVDs.
- the plural of some short words like do. Dos, I suppose, could be confused with DOS (and I'm old enough to remember using it before Windows) so do's it is.

There is another excuse we could give for plural apostrophe writers. According to Lynne Truss, prior to the 19th century apostrophes were used, quite correctly, to show the plural of foreign words ending in a vowel. She gives the examples of words like folio's, pasta's and - yes - banana's. However I doubt that the average grocery store owner knows this fact. Hey, I own a health food store and I didn't know this before.

The confusion between the words its and it's is such a common problem that it's only right to give this error its own paragraph. Here the apostrophe is used only for the contraction of "it is". The possessive pronoun its does not need an apostrophe any more than the other possessive personal pronouns like his, hers, ours, yours and theirs. Simple, right? Now to confuse you again, the possessive of indefinite pronouns like anyone and everybody do require an apostrophe: "It's anyone's guess why everybody's use of the apostrophe is so mixed up".

I invite you to share in the comments some humorous examples of the misuse of apostrophes that you have observed.