When people mis-use literally it bugs me, Anyone else?

[maverick_starstrider]

When people mis-use "literally" it bugs me, Anyone else?

We all have our language pet peeves. Mine is when someone says "literally" when they (quite literally mean figuratively. Like when someone says "That test was "literally" hard as can be" or "that test was "literally" hard as a rock". Or even when someone says "That was "literally" the worst movie I've ever seen" EVERYTIME they see a bad movie. Unless every single bad movie they've seen, through a total fluke of nature, REALLY IS worse than the previous one (and the worst they've ever seen in their lives) they're exaggerating. So why say "literally"? Why not simply say "That was like the worst movie I've ever seen". To say "literally" it suggests that this is not just hyperbole but you've actually considered and qualified this sentence and are sure it is of the utmost veracity.

Anywho, does this bug anyone else? What are other peoples language pet peeves?

 

[Pengwuino]

Why not simply say "That was like the worst movie I've ever seen".

Like oh my god, you're like, so right!

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Well I don't really care much about grammar but I guess why this one bothers me so much is that it has nothing to do with language. It's a LOGICAL FALLACY. It suggests the person cannot correctly determine what is a truthful statement and what is a hyperbolic one.

 

[cristo]

It's because lots of people don't really know what the word literally means: they just use it as an adverb to emphasise that they really do mean what they're saying.

Anyway, I don't see this "That was like the worst movie I've ever seen" as much better.

It's best for me not to start on things that annoy me about peoples use of language!

 

[maverick_starstrider]

It's because lots of people don't really know what the word literally means: they just use it as an adverb to emphasise that they really do mean what they're saying.

Anyway, I don't see this "That was like the worst movie I've ever seen" as much better.

It's best for me not to start on things that annoy me about peoples use of language!

Wow, a lot of people don't like the "like". I think if you just said "The was the worst movie I've ever seen" it'd be TOO hyperbolic (if it clearly WASN'T the WORST movie you've ever seen). To me the "like" acts to lighten the qualifier, so to speak. However, I'm in the "language is an arbitrary and fluid construct of a culture" camp. So when one talks about "the death of the english language" I have no idea what they're talking about. Is it "the death" because we don't talk/write like Henry James or Dickens anymore? Or perhaps like Shakespeare. Or maybe Chaucer. Perhaps the authors of Beowulf?

 

[cristo]

I think if you just said "The was the worst movie I've ever seen" it'd be TOO hyperbolic (if it clearly WASN'T the WORST movie you've ever seen).

How about "That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen"?

However, I'm in the "language is an arbitrary and fluid construct of a culture" camp.

Langauge can't be arbitrary: if it were, then you and I would not have a clue what the other one was saying.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

How about "That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen"?



Langauge can't be arbitrary: if it were, then you and I would not have a clue what the other one was saying.

How is saying "like" arbitrary. You were perfectly aware what I was saying.

 

[cristo]

How is saying "like" arbitrary.

You said

However, I'm in the "language is an arbitrary and fluid construct of a culture" camp.

hence I replied that language cannot be arbitrary.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

You said



hence I replied that language cannot be arbitrary.

Arbitrary in the sense that the word for water could have been "water" or "safdkabksa" it really doesn't matter.

 

[Sorry!]

Arbitrary in the sense that the word for water could have been "water" or "safdkabksa" it really doesn't matter.

from dictionary.com:

Word History: Water is wet, even etymologically. The Indo-European root of water is *wed-, "wet." This root could appear in several guises-with the vowel e, as here, or as *wod-, or with no vowel between the w and d, yielding *ud-. All three forms of the root appear in English either in native or in borrowed words. From a form with a long e, *wēd-, which by Grimm's Law became *wēt- in Germanic, we have Old English wǣt, "wet," which became modern English wet. The form *wod-, in a suffixed form *wod-ōr, became *watar in Germanic and eventually water in modern English. From the form *ud- the Greeks got their word for water, hud-ōr, the source of our prefix hydro- and related words like hydrant. The suffixes *-rā and *-ros added to the form *ud- yielded the Greek word hudrā, "water snake" (borrowed into English as hydra), and the Germanic word *otraz, the source of our word otter, the water animal.

How is that arbitrary? If they named it 'safdkabksa' for no reason then THAT would have been arbitrary but only the word would have been arbitrarly made. To me this in no one implies language is arbitrary or else how would we understand each other.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How is that arbitrary? If they named it 'safdkabksa' for no reason then THAT would have been arbitrary but only the word would have been arbitrarly made. To me this in no one implies language is arbitrary or else how would we understand each other.

Then how were the first words made? Would you like to explain the correspondence of the sounds and number of syllables in a word to the bit of reality to which they refer? Better than that how about the words that describe things which have no concrete existence in reality? Or words for words sake such as 'a' 'the' and 'and'?

You may find precursors and reasons or hypotheses for changes and evolution but you will find no objective reason for why any particular word means a particular thing.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

from dictionary.com:

Word History: Water is wet, even etymologically. The Indo-European root of water is *wed-, "wet." This root could appear in several guises-with the vowel e, as here, or as *wod-, or with no vowel between the w and d, yielding *ud-. All three forms of the root appear in English either in native or in borrowed words. From a form with a long e, *wēd-, which by Grimm's Law became *wēt- in Germanic, we have Old English wǣt, "wet," which became modern English wet. The form *wod-, in a suffixed form *wod-ōr, became *watar in Germanic and eventually water in modern English. From the form *ud- the Greeks got their word for water, hud-ōr, the source of our prefix hydro- and related words like hydrant. The suffixes *-rā and *-ros added to the form *ud- yielded the Greek word hudrā, "water snake" (borrowed into English as hydra), and the Germanic word *otraz, the source of our word otter, the water animal.

How is that arbitrary? If they named it 'safdkabksa' for no reason then THAT would have been arbitrary but only the word would have been arbitrarly made. To me this in no one implies language is arbitrary or else how would we understand each other.

Pointing out that sounds and word in different languages evolve in time and depending on cultural events has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. There is absolutely no logical reason to justify attaching one sound to an idea versus another. It's arbitrary. Whether we call water "water", "aqua", "eau" there is no MORE CORRECT word for the object. It's entirely arbitrary. Pointing out why those particular sounds have come to be used is entirely unrelated.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Furthermore, although it may keep some very silly people awake at night, the fact that people do not have the same concern over dangling participils or split infinitives that they once did is by no means the death of human creativity or poetry. It has not degraded, in any way, the ability of one english speaker to communicate with another. Nor our ability to describe experience and observation. In fact the idea that a language can become "corrupted" suggests there was an uncorrupted version to begin with. So what would that be? Chaucer's english? The queen's english? Valley girl speak?

 

[cristo]

Arbitrary in the sense that the word for water could have been "water" or "safdkabksa" it really doesn't matter.

Sure, vocabulary is arbitrary, but language isn't. Langauge has strict rules which one must abide by, otherwise two persons would not be able to understand one another.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm told that linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive. If people start saying safdkabksa when they mean water, then it is the job of the linguist to make note of it, not to lement it. That said, I do have a wistful look on my face when I hear people redefine the meaning of the phrase 'beg the question'. Its traditional meaning of 'take for granted' is so interesting and its evolving meaning is handled better by the phrase 'raise the question'.

 

[Redbelly98]

This thread is literally driving me nuts.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sure, vocabulary is arbitrary, but language isn't. Langauge has strict rules which one must abide by, otherwise two persons would not be able to understand one another.

I'm sure there are plenty of ebonics and cockney speakers out there that understand one another just fine no matter how much they may butcher 'proper' grammar.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I'm sure there are plenty of ebonics and cockney speakers out there that understand one another just fine no matter how much they may butcher 'proper' grammar.

Or just read anything by Faulkner.

 

[mgb_phys]

Wow, a lot of people don't like the "like". I think if you just said "The was the worst movie I've ever seen" it'd be TOO hyperbolic (if it clearly WASN'T the WORST movie you've ever seen)

Unless they meant it was similair to the worst movie they had ever seen. So the worst movie ever is a particular Michael Bay explosion-fest then any other explosion-fest is 'like' the worst movie ever!

 

[Sorry!]

Pointing out that sounds and word in different languages evolve in time and depending on cultural events has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. There is absolutely no logical reason to justify attaching one sound to an idea versus another. It's arbitrary. Whether we call water "water", "aqua", "eau" there is no MORE CORRECT word for the object. It's entirely arbitrary. Pointing out why those particular sounds have come to be used is entirely unrelated.

You said that the word 'water' was given to describe 'water' arbitrarily. Clearly this isn't the case. Sure if you go WAY back to when language was FIRST created then it IS arbitrary but ENGLISH is for the most part not, its a compounded language based on other languages which can clearly be traced back. I ALSO conceited that WORDS can be arbitrarily selected but that does not imply that language is arbitrary. If you try talking to me using your 'arbitrary' language your not longer speaking the LANGUAGE English. Your speaking something else.

 

[mgb_phys]

I ALSO conceited that WORDS can be arbitrarily selected but that does not imply that language is arbitrary. If you try talking to me using your 'arbitrary' language your not longer speaking the LANGUAGE English.

But I can still understand him if he insists on leaving the U out of words with 'ou', replaces 's' with 'z', insists on using the plural form of you and yours when speaking to one person - or uses 'like' to emphasize a point.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm sure there are plenty of ebonics and cockney speakers out there that understand one another just fine no matter how much they may butcher 'proper' grammar.

A language is a dialect with an army - unknown.

 

[Sorry!]

But I can still understand him if he insists on leaving the U out of words with 'ou', replaces 's' with 'z', insists on using the plural form of you and yours when speaking to one person - or uses 'like' to emphasize a point.

So if i were to say bam bang yous up torque. You understand me right? The rules can be bent slightly but not changed.

 

[mgb_phys]

So if i were to say bam bang yous up torque. You understand me right? The rules can be bent slightly but not changed.

Same as you would understand if your homies said it was 'well wicked right'.
Or if my homies said 'Is tha young-en laiken art toneet'

There are grammatical and vocabulary within a group. Valley girls say 'like' to emphasis a point, shakespeare repeats it in verse, Dickens puts in a page of describing the weather and Michael Bay blows something up.

 

[Sorry!]

Same as you would understand if your homies said it was 'well wicked right'.
Or if my homies said 'Is tha young-en laiken art toneet'

There are grammatical and vocabulary within a group. Valley girls say 'like' to emphasis a point, shakespeare repeats it in verse, Dickens puts in a page of describing the weather and Michael Bay blows something up.

You speak as if I'm saying English has no subdivisions. As well no if my 'homies' said 'well wicked right' I would have to think about it before understanding, as I'm sure you do too. As well just because you can use 'street' language such as a presumably old slang word such as laiken (beautiful person i think?) doesn't mean that english is arbitrary. Even that that word is arbitrary I am certain that it was chosen for a reason and not out of a hat.

 

[mgb_phys]

'Laiken' = 'Playing' as in 'a child coming out to play' in Yorkshire (believed to be old Norse)

But slangs are not normally arbitrary, they have reasons - but usually deliberately confusing ones. So wicked and bad mean 'good', knowing this means you are part of the group, in the same way that knowing how to pronounce Magelene college shows you are part of that group.

Using 'like' to emphasize a point is no worse than using terribly. The coffee isn't terribly hot - there is nothing terrible about it.
Presumably the first person to use literally 'wrongly' was being ironic - but eventually it will become wrong to use it to mean anything other than virtualy.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

You speak as if I'm saying English has no subdivisions. As well no if my 'homies' said 'well wicked right' I would have to think about it before understanding, as I'm sure you do too. As well just because you can use 'street' language such as a presumably old slang word such as laiken (beautiful person i think?) doesn't mean that english is arbitrary. Even that that word is arbitrary I am certain that it was chosen for a reason and not out of a hat.

If you honestly think that words in the English language (or any language for that matter) were "chosen" then I don't think you understand what language is. As you previously pointed out, language grows and transforms without any particularly deliberate action by the speakers and our language, like all the others, grew out of people arbitrarily applying sounds to ideas. They had no reason to associate a certain sound with a particular idea, it was a random choice. Perhaps a really popular cro-magnon started pointing at a cave and made a certain sound (although he could have easily made any other sound) and he was a popular cave man and well liked amonst his nomadic tribesman so they started immitating him and now, hundreds of thousands of years later, (maybe less than that) english speakers use the word "cave" other languages use other sounds. It was all arbitrary.

 

[Sorry!]

If you honestly think that words in the English language (or any language for that matter) were "chosen" then I don't think you understand what language is. As you previously pointed out, language grows and transforms without any particularly deliberate action by the speakers and our language, like all the others, grew out of people arbitrarily applying sounds to ideas. They had no reason to associate a certain sound with a particular idea, it was a random choice. Perhaps a really popular cro-magnon started pointing at a cave and made a certain sound (although he could have easily made any other sound) and he was a popular cave man and well liked amonst his nomadic tribesman so they started immitating him and now, hundreds of thousands of years later, (maybe less than that) english speakers use the word "cave" other languages use other sounds. It was all arbitrary.

Well he couldn't have easily made another sounds human language uses phonemes... and baby's LOOK for these phonemes so they can learn language relatively fast. But i never said the words were CHOSEN that it EVOLVED. Evolution is not arbitrary.

What I said chosen for in that post you quoted was about the slang use of terms.

 

[mgb_phys]

Slang proves your point (actually both your points - you both seem to be saying the same thing!).
You can mangle the vocabulary a huge amount (bad=good, literally=not literally) and still be understandable (vocabulary is arbitrary) but if you change the structure it's much harder to understand (structure is learned earlier)

A literary example (literally!), in Clockwork orange Burgess uses Russian slang in English but from the context it's easy to pick out what 'my drooges' are. In the moon is a harsh mistress, Heinlein uses English words but with Russian grammar and word order - much harder to read.

 

[cristo]

I'm sure there are plenty of ebonics and cockney speakers out there that understand one another just fine no matter how much they may butcher 'proper' grammar.

But when such dialects evolve, they aren't done by individuals sitting on their own. There are still rules, whether written down or not. My point is that this is not arbitrary; if it were arbitrary, then everyone would be speaking a different language. Regardless of what you call something, there must be rules which evolve the language, otherwise no one would understand what anyone else would be talking about.

 

[negitron]

Evolution is not arbitrary.

Uh, yeah, it is. It is literally arbitrary, by definition. I'm beginning to think you don't know what arbitrary actually means.

 

[Sorry!]

Uh, yeah, it is. It is literally arbitrary, by definition. I'm beginning to think you don't know what arbitrary actually means.

No events leading to evolution may be arbitrary but evolution itself is not arbitrary. It is literally Natural Selection, selection vs arbitrary non-selective.

And yes @maverick. I already conceited that some words in english may have been arbitrarily given definition but we're talking abuot the entire language being arbitrarily constructive and having arbitrary rules are we not?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Are you suggesting that the phonetics of "water" were evolutionarily selected for? What about "agua"? In japanese the "respect level" is very important to the structure of a sentence. In some languages objects have gender, in others, like ours, they don't. In some languages all proper nouns are preceded by a definite article, in ours they aren't. If french youth started stripping le,la,l',les from their sentences then I'm sure there would be those who called it a corruption of french but it would not really effect their ability to communicate at all. It would just make french more like english.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

No events leading to evolution may be arbitrary but evolution itself is not arbitrary. It is literally Natural Selection, selection vs arbitrary non-selective.

And yes @maverick. I already conceited that some words in english may have been arbitrarily given definition but we're talking abuot the entire language being arbitrarily constructive and having arbitrary rules are we not?

Well no, the structure or a language can't be entirely arbitrary, Logically one needs a certain minimalist system to convey information (and often languages don't actually follow this, leading to ambiguous sentences). However, above the bare skeleton there's a whole lot of arbitrariness in the structure of language. For example, the direct example given to spark this conversation was the insertion of "like" in sentences. This does not break the ability to communicate ideas in any way. It is simply a manner of arbitrary taste whether one sees it as "acceptable English"

 

[maverick_starstrider]

No events leading to evolution may be arbitrary but evolution itself is not arbitrary. It is literally Natural Selection, selection vs arbitrary non-selective.

And yes @maverick. I already conceited that some words in english may have been arbitrarily given definition but we're talking abuot the entire language being arbitrarily constructive and having arbitrary rules are we not?

P.S. evolution is not just "selection". It also includes random mutation, migration and genetic drift which are random occurances.

 

[negitron]

No events leading to evolution may be arbitrary but evolution itself is not arbitrary. It is literally Natural Selection, selection vs arbitrary non-selective.

Unless you're suggesting there is reason behind evolution, you are incorrect. Please look up the word "arbitrary" lest you embarass yourself further.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Unless you're suggesting there is reason behind evolution, you are incorrect. Please look up the word "arbitrary" lest you embarass yourself further.

Ouch.

 

[BobG]

If you honestly think that words in the English language (or any language for that matter) were "chosen" then I don't think you understand what language is. As you previously pointed out, language grows and transforms without any particularly deliberate action by the speakers and our language, like all the others, grew out of people arbitrarily applying sounds to ideas. They had no reason to associate a certain sound with a particular idea, it was a random choice. Perhaps a really popular cro-magnon started pointing at a cave and made a certain sound (although he could have easily made any other sound) and he was a popular cave man and well liked amonst his nomadic tribesman so they started immitating him and now, hundreds of thousands of years later, (maybe less than that) english speakers use the word "cave" other languages use other sounds. It was all arbitrary.

So you believe that in the first languages, simple command verbs were as likely to have 2 syllables as 1? Or 5 syllables as 1?

You believe that the first nouns created were as likely as verbs to be single syllable words? Or that nouns and verbs sprang up simultaneously, sometimes with a verb being invented and sometimes with a noun being invented?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

So you believe that in the first languages, simple command verbs were as likely to have 2 syllables as 1? Or 5 syllables as 1?

You believe that the first nouns created were as likely as verbs to be single syllable words? Or that nouns and verbs sprang up simultaneously, sometimes with a verb being invented and sometimes with a noun being invented?

I find it hard to believe that all primitive languages were dominated by single syllable words because they are easy to say. It wouldn't even take a generation before someone decided to give themselves a longer name or lash together single syllabled words to make new nouns and such. However, all of this has gotten so far from the point. Lamenting the insertion of "like" into a sentence, as is commonly done in slang, as a corruption of the enligh language is sheer nonsense. Languages are fluid and change with culture. There is no absolute criteria by which one can evaluate the "correctness" of one language over another or devalue the use of slang vocabulary and grammar.

 

[BobG]

I find it hard to believe that all primitive languages were dominated by single syllable words because they are easy to say. It wouldn't even take a generation before someone decided to give themselves a longer name or lash together single syllabled words to make new nouns and such. However, all of this has gotten so far from the point. Lamenting the insertion of "like" into a sentence, as is commonly done in slang, as a corruption of the enligh language is sheer nonsense. Languages are fluid and change with culture. There is no absolute criteria by which one can evaluate the "correctness" of one language over another or devalue the use of slang vocabulary and grammar.

I'm not going to go so far as to say it's a fact, since there are few or zero very primitive languages around today that haven't interacted with other languages, but I would guess that most languages, including primitive languages, have more nouns than command verbs and would hence be dominated by multi-syllable words (especially if having a longer name somehow carried prestige). Whether that's actually true or not is irrelevant.

It is relevant that nouns and verbs are processed differently by different parts of the brain. (Verb and Verb-Derived Noun Production: Hemifield Similarities and Differences is one example, chosen only because you can view at least some substance without having to pay a fee).

There is some range of randomness in actual sounds for a given word ("give" vs "sit" for example), but the development of language has some serious constraints that keep the language from straying off "randomly". The same type of patterns keep popping up over and over (even the "so bad it's good", "so pleasurable it hurts", "laugh so hard I cried" pattern).

 

[negitron]

Look up "identical twin languages" for some idea of how language arose spontaneously.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I'm not going to go so far as to say it's a fact, since there are few or zero very primitive languages around today that haven't interacted with other languages, but I would guess that most languages, including primitive languages, have more nouns than command verbs and would hence be dominated by multi-syllable words (especially if having a longer name somehow carried prestige). Whether that's actually true or not is irrelevant.

It is relevant that nouns and verbs are processed differently by different parts of the brain. (Verb and Verb-Derived Noun Production: Hemifield Similarities and Differences is one example, chosen only because you can view at least some substance without having to pay a fee).

There is some range of randomness in actual sounds for a given word ("give" vs "sit" for example), but the development of language has some serious constraints that keep the language from straying off "randomly". The same type of patterns keep popping up over and over (even the "so bad it's good", "so pleasurable it hurts", "laugh so hard I cried" pattern).

Yeesh, I've already explained what I meant by arbitrary, and what by Zeus' great ghost does this have to do with whether the incorrect usage of "literally" is irritating or the phrase "That movie was like the worst movie I've ever seen" is poor english. It is interesting to know but I guess I don't see the relevance to the discussion.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I'm not going to go so far as to say it's a fact, since there are few or zero very primitive languages around today that haven't interacted with other languages, but I would guess that most languages, including primitive languages, have more nouns than command verbs and would hence be dominated by multi-syllable words (especially if having a longer name somehow carried prestige). Whether that's actually true or not is irrelevant.

It is relevant that nouns and verbs are processed differently by different parts of the brain. (Verb and Verb-Derived Noun Production: Hemifield Similarities and Differences is one example, chosen only because you can view at least some substance without having to pay a fee).

There is some range of randomness in actual sounds for a given word ("give" vs "sit" for example), but the development of language has some serious constraints that keep the language from straying off "randomly". The same type of patterns keep popping up over and over (even the "so bad it's good", "so pleasurable it hurts", "laugh so hard I cried" pattern).

Are you in any way denying or providing counter evidence to the claim that language is fluid and a reflection of culture and that there exists no absolute criteria through which one can evaluate the "correctness" of a language or slang?

 

[BobG]

Are you in any way denying or providing counter evidence to the claim that language is fluid and a reflection of culture and that there exists no absolute criteria through which one can evaluate the "correctness" of a language or slang?

No.

In fact, going back through the thread, I'm surprised so much of the thread wound up being devoted to discussing an arbitrary decision to include one specific word in one specific post. I "conceit" that language is in a constant state of evolution and there is no "correct" language. (But the lasting changes to a language aren't just random diversions.)

 

[Danger]

This thread is literally driving me nuts.

Well, that would be a long trip...
Half a teaspoon of gas, and you wouldn't have time to put on your seatbelt.

The one linguistic no-no, which is not arbitrary, that irritates the hell out of me is when someone says "That's pretty unique", or "quite unique". 'Unique' literally () means that it's the only one of its kind. Something either is or is not unique; there's no middle ground.

 

[Sorry!]

No.

In fact, going back through the thread, I'm surprised so much of the thread wound up being devoted to discussing an arbitrary decision to include one specific word in one specific post. I "conceit" that language is in a constant state of evolution and there is no "correct" language. (But the lasting changes to a language aren't just random diversions.)

Thats my mistake as I was reading thru this thread i forgot completely about the OP. I guess when I read that 'language is arbitrary' I took it as the language itself and not the layman use of terms.

@negiton. I'm pretty sure Evolution is the change in genetic make up from one generation to the next of a given organism. Ergo, genetic mutations isn't evolution, they are genetic mutations. Some DO lead to evolution to a next generation of organism but that is through a selective process of which benefit the organism whether its efficiency, mating, catching prey, avoiding predators etc. At least this is MY take on it if you have some other definition of evolution by all means go for it.

Arbitrarily is an adverb. Synonyms include: randomly, indiscriminately, haphazardly, willy-nilly, arbitrarily, at random, every which way
From http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=arbitrarily

'Arbitrary' means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality." [32] The notion of a universe-creating, reality-ruling consciousness (i.e., "God") is an arbitrary idea; it is an idea which has no legitimate supporting evidence. However, with the rise of the western mind's dependence on reason, theistic philosophers and apologists can no longer find their recourses to "sheer assertion" persuasive to many of the minds which they hope to convince. Consequently, such philosophers and apologists have attempted various avenues of constructing arguments in order to provide the pretense that this notorious, arbitrary idea has a credible perceptual and/or conceptual basis, thus removing it from the purely arbitrary status it originally had.

From: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Definitions.htm

If you would like to continue to 'embarass' me some more then by all means begin a new post or send me a pm. I'm bored anyways.

 

[negitron]

You're still doing just fine all on your own.

 

[Sorry!]

You're still doing just fine all on your own.

Awesome.

 

[FredGarvin]

I don't know if anyone else saw this, but a sportscaster on ESPN was talking about Tiger Woods and the Buick Open...He said that "Tiger Woods was literally on fire on the back nine."

I laughed. I detest the misuse as well.

 

[Redbelly98]

The one linguistic no-no, which is not arbitrary, that irritates the hell out of me is when someone says "That's pretty unique", or "quite unique". 'Unique' literally () means that it's the only one of its kind. Something either is or is not unique; there's no middle ground.

For me, it's "I could care less."