Lake Superiority Complex

The annual Lake Superior State Banished Words list is up. It's always a great way to get my eye-rolling started for the year.

If you want the link, Google™ it. It deserves no direct traffic from my 7 readers.

Here is the list, followed by one or two comments from those who cherish the peeve-fest; that followed by my snarky responses.

---

SHOVEL-READY

"Do I really need a reason? Well, if so how about this: I just saw it in tandem with 'cyber-ready' and nearly choked on my coffee. It's starting the '-ready' jargon. Makes me 'vacation-ready.'" – Karen Hill, Ann Arbor, Mich.

It's starting the jargon? That must explain the cable-ready T.V. we had back in the 80's, and the Roast-ready rib cited from 1926 by the OED.

---

TRANSPARENT/TRANSPARENCY

"In the lexicon of the political arena, this word is supposed to mean obvious or easily understood. In reality, political transparency is more invisible than obvious!" -- Deb Larson, Bellaire, Mich.

I suppose you'd also like to banish the words honesty trustworthiness and accountability because those politicians are so undeserving of them.

And for what it's worth, in the lexicon of the political arena the words actually refer to policies of full disclosure, not necessarily ease of understanding. How about criticizing only words you know?

---

CZAR

"We have appointed a czar of such-and-such; clearly that's better than a 'leader,' 'coordinator' or 'director'! -- Derek Lawrence, Thunder Bay, Ont.

When pressed for space, yes: czar is much better than those words. The official titles have used such terms as Director, Coordinator , Administrator, Advisor, Assistant Secretary, Special Representative, Counselor, Chairman, and many many more words that you'd love. But headlines don't love such long words. And neither would you if you had to write them.

---

TWEET

"People tweet and retweet and I just heard the word 'tweet' so many times it lost all meaning.” – Ricardo, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.

And I have read complaints like these so many times…

---

APP

"Is there an 'app' for making this annoying word go away? Why can't we just call them 'programs' again?" – Kuahmel Allah, Los Angeles, Calif.

Because you would complain about that word and would whine about how we should call them mathematical tasks designed for solution by the Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer.

---

SEXTING

"Any dangerous new trend that also happens to have a clever mash-up of words, involves teens, and gets television talk show hosts interested must be banished." – Ishmael Daro, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada.

I'm going to banish rock-and-roll next.

---

FRIEND (verb)

"'Befriend' is much more pleasant to the human ear and a perfectly useful word in the dictionary." – Kevin K., Morris, Okla.

Tho it doth spleet the ears of the groundlings, friend is in the dictionary. And it was used by Shakespeare. Probably not in relation to Facebook tho because his dictionary hadn't yet given him permission. Can I use it if I make sure to whisper it when you're around?

---

TEACHABLE MOMENT

"It's a condescending substitute for 'opportunity to make a point,'" says Eric Rosenquist of College Station, Tex.

And this is a condescending substitute for reasonable discussion of language.

---

IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES….

"Overused and redundant. Aren't ALL times 'these economic times'?" -- Barb Stutesman, Three Rivers, Mich.

Why do you think we have to use the phrase so much?!

---

STIMULUS

"What next, can I go down to the local bar and down a few drinks and call it a stimulus package?" – Richard Brown, Portland, Ore.

My guess is your package has very little to do with stimulation.

---

TOXIC ASSETS

"Whatever happened to simply 'bad stocks,' 'debts,' or 'loans'?" -- Monty Heidenreich, Homewood, Ill.

They were bought-out by Richard Brown's round of drinking.

---

TOO BIG TO FAIL

"Does such a thing exist? We'll never know if a company is too big to fail, unless somehow it does fail, and then it will no longer be too big to fail. Make it stop!" – Holli, Raleigh, NC.

Duuude. And what if you could, like, design a flashlight that was powered by its own light? It would be like time travel, man.

---

BROMANCE

"I am sick of combined words the media creates to make them sound catchier. Frenemies? Bromances? Blogorrhea? I'm going to scream!" – Kaylynn, Alberta, Canada.

You hear that, media? We humans are on to you!

---

CHILLAXIN'

"A made-up word used by annoying Gen-Yers." – Chris Jensen, Fond du Lac, Wisc.

I hate made up words. When will these Gen-Yers learn to reap them naturally from the soil like the not-at-all-annoying Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers.

---

OBAMA-prefix or roots?

The LSSU Word Banishment Committee held out hope that folks would want to Obama-ban Obama-structions, but were surprised that no one Obama-nominated any, such as these compiled by the Oxford Dictionary in 2009: Obamanomics, Obamanation, Obamafication, Obamacare, Obamalicious, Obamaland….We say Obamanough already.

Ok, Obama-structions follows the template of a morpheme meaning that something is done in a style related to or characterized by Obama's platform or his manner, or the sensibilities of his supporters. But Obama-ban? That's Obama-tarded.

Maddow chooses to inexplicably apologize

The metaphor of language as music is fruitful.

When I used to perform music publicly, my teacher (Roger Jackson) gave me a bit of advice that I should follow more often. "If you make a mistake," he said, "make it proudly." His thinking was that more often than not, I knew more about that piece of music than anyone in the audience. He repeatedly assured me that the masses have no idea what note's coming next and they can't remember what note was just played. If you mess up a note (or seven) in Fernando Sor's Introduction and Variations on a Theme by Mozart from The Magic Flute, the only way the audience will know it, is if you grimace or react with shame.

My habit of wincing at a missed note had come almost certainly from an attempt to say to the audience I'm better than that mistake. If you caught that, please know that I did too. In other words: don't criticize me, because even if I didn't play it perfectly, I know this song as well as you do. Judge me not by what my fingers do. Listen not to which strings they pluck.

Makes no sense, does it.

I think of this every time I hear someone apologize for a word or a phrase they feel guilty using. But unlike a musician, who might slip from an accurate performance off a score, speakers who apologize, typically haven't missed or failed to meet anything other than an arbitrary and artificially enforced standard. I'm not speaking of errors such as spoonerisms or retrieval errors that are in fact mistakes of inaccuracy. I'm thinking of the false rules that English teachers have lobbied for and which many of the more assiduous students have accepted as proof of attention to detail. As proof of language skill. But which are little more than proof of a list memorized.

And the zeal to show that this list is mastered, can lead to this:

Maddow: …which the Democratic party inexplicably still allows him to keep. When he campaigns for Republican candidates, he is biting the hand that inexplicably feeds him. Pardon the split infinitive.

The only infinitive I can see in there is "to keep" and it's not split. What is Maddow apologizing for? Probably for the split relative pronoun/verb pair, "that feeds" interrupted by "inexplicably."

I don't have to spend much of this space shaking my head at how well-educated people know so little about the terminology of language and its structures. Labels are thrown around and terms are used without regard for their established use by people who study language for a living. Don't use the terminology of linguists just because linguists use it; use the terminology because linguists are among the only people who use it systematically.

Looking first at Maddow's confusion: a split infinitive typically refers to an adverb coming between infinitival to and a verb.

to→boldly←go

to→falsely←accuse

to→overzealously←apologize

But here it looks like Maddow thinks a split infinitive is more generally an adverb jumping between a verb and another preceding word that feels like a unit with the verb. In this case, a relative pronoun, that, introducing the relative clause that … feeds him.

If the sentence was rewritten around the phrase the hand that continues to feed him, a split infinitive—to inexplicably feed—might be a less than optimal choice (if only because of ambiguity). However the ideal place would be pretty much in the same place as the sentence Maddow apologized for: between the relative pronoun and the verb

the hand that→inexplicably←continues to feed him

Any other placement of the adverb in Maddow's sentence would be either ungrammatical or awkward or misleading or at the very least, less clear.

He is biting the hand, inexplicably, that feeds him.

This would mean either that he is biting in an inexplicable manner or that it is inexplicable that he is biting.

He is biting the hand that feeds, inexplicably, him.

If this one is even grammatical it probably means that it is inexplicable that he is the one being fed. It could possibly mean what Maddow seems to be going for, that the fact that the hand is feeding him is inexplicable, (this is all so close to that old familiar complaint about sentential modifier hopefully). But that's a horribly awkward sentence.

He is biting the hand that feeds him inexplicably.

This one is less awkward than the previous sentence but it remains ambiguous and, to my ear, leans towards the wrong meaning, sounding more like an adverb on the manner of feeding.

Altho Maddow's sentence is also ambiguous, the context is a big help in making the intention clear. It is pretty easily the best place for "inexplicably" as the sentence is constructed. And going with "inexplicably" is much better than trying to shoehorn a phrase like 'it is inexplicable that the hand feeds him.'

I assume Maddow is reading from her own script. So she has chosen, probably carefully, a structure that she feels she has to apologize for. It's likely that she chose the wording because she recognizes that it's a good way of saying what she's trying to say. In the metaphor of music, this is not a missed note. This is the chord just as she wanted. It came out just as she had hoped. So why the apology? Sometimes the self-reproach I mentioned earlier comes not because a flub, but because of an expected rebuke. In a sense, 'Leave me alone. I did that on purpose.' It's like performing your own composition and apologizing for a rasgueado because you know your audience would have preferred an arpeggio.

And my guess is that Doctor Maddow senses her fans are given to peevology. I have not enough evidence to make the same claim about Maddow's views on grammar.

Since this post has gone on long enough I'll stop before I turn to contributor Kent Jones, whose grammatical snobbery is thick and deserves a post of its own.

On terms and clarity

The Facebookers are after me. This post arises from the same comment thread that spawned the last post.

I wrote

in my opinion the best way to observe grammar is by noting how fluent speakers purposefully form their sentences, not by how some people wish sentences were formed. and if i want to be a good writer -- i'll learn from the example good writers (tho not always from their advice).

Friend the Second responded:

Who defines "fluent" and "good writers"? To me, they are the ones who use the language in a consistent manner to convey information in the most clear and concise manner. So the people I consider "fluent", you would probably consider stagnant. For me, the language is a communication tool, not an art medium, as it hampers my work when … communication is not consistent. Perhaps the best "quick example" I can give is with the common names of organisms. Common names are regional, applied haphazardly, and often misused. Just because everyone calls members of the Coccinellidae "ladybugs" does not suddenly place that group of organisms in the Order Hemiptera, which is the group of "bugs", rather it remains a beetle (order Coleoptera), despite misuse by many people considered "good writers", or even "good scientists".

Fluency is not a measure of aesthetic quality or fluidity. Linguists often use "fluent" to describe speakers who learn a language with native ability and no syntactic, phonological, or semantic/pragmatic limitation beyond that which would be expected of their dialect. It's not about being smooth or melodious. Many stagnant writers are completely fluent. As I use the word. Other terms for this would be first-language or L1 speaker, or speakers with native competence and proficiency.

Defining good writing is not that important to me in discussing the issue. The argument is of limited interest to me generally. When linguists use examples from writers' works, it's usually in the interest of countering the argument that "masters of the language" won't use singular "their" or split an infinitive or put a preposition at the end of a sentence. It's a simple argument: If you think Shakespeare was a master of the English language, then shouldn't his example be worth considering? If you don't think he's that great, give me your favourite writers. You'll find that they break many of your favourite rules in their work. So who can be trusted to define the language if not the speakers?

Linguists know better than anyone that language is not a free-form art medium. It's a system. It's bound and constrained by real grammar. Not by an arbitrarily manufactured and promoted set of expectations. The premise of descriptivism is that languages are best studied when they are considered as they are, not as some would argue they should be. It's the difference between observation and imposition. Even if I have favored forms and aesthetic sensibilities, I must admit that language isn't defined by desire, no matter how well I can argue that it would benefit from this or that feature.

The issue of conventional labeling is a real concern in many situations. It's true that many of the labels used by laypeople don't correspond exactly to the labels used by specialists in various fields. That's a jargon and terminology issue, not really a grammatical one. When I say that use informs grammar, I'm not also saying that the use of one label necessarily controls the category to which that thing belongs. Categories can have fixed definitions, conventionalized by one group, regardless of the labels that are conventionalized by another group for items that might or might not fit in that category.

People who point and say "Look! A ladybug!" are in no way saying "Look! A member of the Order Hemiptera!" They're using a common word for the insect even tho an entomologist might not use that same word... anymore. But are they pointing at a ladybug? On this one I'm going with the majority rule. Yes. They are. Why is it a ladybug? Because that's what people call it. The common label doesn't need to find the approval of the scientific label. It doesn't even need to take it into account. In some circles a label might be discouraged. But being discouraged in one group does not make it wrong in all others. Come now. Is ladybug really bad grammar? Isn't it the clearest and most concise label the vast majority of the time? That's what establishing a standard of consistency gets us. Speak so they can understand you.

Appropriately this relates to the question of fluency and grammar and even English and language. As we saw, I was using fluent differently from the way my friend thought I was using it. And that definition was key to a part of my point. The purposefully fluent_native usage of fluent_1.native speakers defines langauge, not the purposefully fluent_pleasing usage of fluent_2.pleasing speakers. I find much of E.E. Cummings' poetry to be wonderfully fluid and ungrammatical at the same time. Grammar has to be defined as well. Many peevologists like to use grammar to mean a style of writing that conforms to a list of chosen and imposed standards regardless of the actual use of native (fluent₁) speakers. A standard is chosen and its merit is argued and the reality of actual usage is ignored.

When they speak of Language they are not thinking of the same system that linguists consider. For peevologists, The English language is a Platonic ideal that exists even if nobody is careful enough to speak it. For linguists the English language is the system, varied and mutable, that must be observed honestly, even when a more efficient and unambiguous system can be imagined. Such a system is much more interesting to me when seen as a field with barely visible borders—at times distant; at times nearby—rather than a vault with sturdy cement walls. We know those vaults exist. And we understand that they are safe. We know that they are fixed. We call them dead and frozen languages.

On Like

This post and the next will address challenges to my views that were expressed elsewhere. These topics are familiar to many of you.

So if we, like, all say, like, a lot of "like"s...then it's somehow correct?

Alexandra D'Arcy nicely addresses several faulty notions about the word in Like and language ideology: disentangling fact from fiction. The word is not meaningless. There's no proof that women say it more often than men. It wasn't introduced by Valley Girls. D'Arcy then analyses vernacular like as fitting into four categories:

Quotative Complementizer

She was like, 'Shut up' and I was like, 'Leave me alone!'

Approximative Adverb

It was like a week ago and he hasn't forgotten about it.

Discourse Marker

Like I have no idea what their problem is.

Discourse Particle

That's like really nice of you!

(Vernacular like is distinguished from the uses of like that many call the real or acceptable forms.)*

And while it fits in all sorts of places in the same sentence:

1. So, like, I told him to shut up immediately.



2. So, I told him to, like, shut up immediately.



3. So, I told him to shut up, like, immediately.


...it does follow some rules. The following sentence doesn't work as easily:


4. ?So, I told, like, him to shut up immediately.

But even that one is passable if the intention is a contrastive focus. Imagine that the previous sentence was "He told me to shut up!" In sentence 4, with a stress on him, the like is part of the focus. Pretty handy in written language if you ask me.

Yes. Like is grammatical. Using it too often can be a distraction. It's not standard in writing or in formal speech, but it's not an incorrect form. Of more concern then is the overuse. Anything that is overused can easily become tiresome and distracting. A friend of mine was recently interviewed on the radio and he said clearly so many times that i started chuckling at each one. But he wasn't speaking incorrectly. He was just using one perfectly good word too often.

Some would argue that too many likes is evidence of sloppy thinking. There's no evidence of that. Some would argue it's a hedge. A stall. In fact it's often used to propel speech and keep it rhythmic. It has a grammatical function and can signal specific intentions in speech. It can introduce a quote. It can signal an imminent description. It focuses figures.

Like is not thrown around without rules and without regard for meaning. It serves a function in a sentence. It follows rules and accomplishes something. There's nothing parasitic about it.

But like, you know, my point is not that, like, a sentence with like, twenty likes is like, the best way that you can like, say something.

Just that it's a matter of style rather than correctness.

---

*D'Arcy provides the following unremarkable examples:

1. Verb: I don't really like her that much.
   
2. Noun: He grew up with the likes … of all great fighters.
   
3. Adverb: It looks like a snail.
   
4. Conjunction: It felt like everything had dropped away.
   
5. Suffix: I went, [mumbling] or something like stroke-like.

List, list, O, list!

Lake Superior State puts the bore in borealis.*

A couple weeks ago the university released its anal annual Banished Words list.

I think the usual commenters ignored it because this list is weak. Particularly. It's predictable and familiar. More'n usual even. It's not really worth arguing against, but it's definitely worth mocking. Here is the skeleton:

Environmental terms:
GREEN
in all it's forms. So then are we supposed to start saying adhering to certain standards for processes and materials widely agreed upon as less harmful to the environment? Yes I know that circumlocution is necessary to replace almost any single word. I'm not saying that without a certain word its concept can only be expressed with a ridiculously long phrase. My point: when a word works well and is relevant to a common topic of conversation, and you start getting sick of the topic, don't blame the word.

CARBON FOOTPRINT or CARBON OFFSETTING – "It is now considered fashionable for everyone, tree hugger or lumberjack alike, to pay money to questionable companies to ‘offset’ their own ‘carbon footprint.’ What a scam! Get rid of it immediately!" Ginger Hunt, London, England.

Ms Hunt appears to argue with misguided faith in a hard Sapir-Whorf reading: that we can't think something without a word for it; that getting rid of a word will eradicate the idea it represents. I'm going to stop saying 'Lake Superior State University Banished Words List' starting now. Check in a year from now to see if it worked.


Politics:
MAVERICK
Why waste time complaining about a word that was really just used by one person? OK two people. Next year they're going to banish Ross for Boss.


Texting horrors:
<3
Representing a heart, or the word love. 'Cuz those dam kids r killing english one keystroke @ a time.


In the media:
DESPERATE SEARCH
Really? Banishing a phrase like this reminds me of those phrases on Wheel of Fortune that aren't really established phrases
Phrase: SOME ROOM IN THE FREEZER
Around the House: THE TINY HAT IN THE BASEMENT

…but that they have to come up with something because they're running out of ideas:

NOT SO MUCH
Reaching back to 2002 for words to start hating now.

ICON or ICONIC
You're all morons. Or moronic.

IT’S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN
And I feel a little dumber for caring.

---

*To be fair I should point out that this yearly gem is put out by the PR department. The list and my criticism have nothing to do with the education available at the school. And I'm sure the students are cool too.

Ranking usage

Casey has asked an interesting question in a comment to the previous post. He's afraid to used the word forte because he learned that it's pronounced just like fort. (Unless you're speaking of volume in music, that is. The opposite of piano is indeed pronounced 'fortay'.)

So what do you do when you know Group.1 thinks that pronunciation A is ignorant and Group.2 thinks that pronunciation B is ignorant and Group.3 knows the debate but thinks that you're only choosing pronunciation B because you're pretentious?

Bryan Garner in his Dictionary of Modern American Usage identifies this paradox as a skunked term: a linguistic lose-lose situation as Casey calls it.

In this article at his former roost, Ben Zimmer mentions a few other terms that have been skunked to varying degrees of rankness. Enormity is torn between enormousness and horribleness. Fulsome has one foot in the abundant camp and the other in the grotesquely abundant camp. Some people will shy away from hopefully in any use (both as it is hoped and in a hopeful manner) because they know there are some who jump on the word indiscriminately. There are those who believe nauseous should only be used as a synonym for noxious while others say it's fine to use it like nauseated or feeling sick.

Step forward confidently and use your word brazenly. Because there are plenty of people in Group.4: those who know the debates and are willing to assume to that no matter which pronunciation you've chosen it's in good faith.

I'll stop my list and let you contribute any answers to Casey's question. Are there others?

Such a bitter bounty

My direction has been swerving heavily towards issues of prescriptivism and all it's strange forms. I'm not just looking at the structures they (the peevologists and prescriptivists) pre-/pro-scribe but also the arguments they use. Their assumptions about language. Their assumptions about linguistics. Their assumptions about descriptivism. What they ignore. What they don't notice. What they don't know. (Yes Casey. Some of this is knowledge.)

I have subscribed to several peevological blog feeds and I thought I would be running into the same ol' arguments that we've heard and discarded. But I'm so delighted to find such varied confusion out there. From big names who are considered experts. On language.

We already knew they were out there, but I'm just so happy to see that categorizing the mistakes and misapprehensions will be fruitful. If you know of any good 'highly regarded' prescriptivist sites or sources please send them my way. They need their due attention.

It's not personal. It's cause you're one of 'them'

A couple weeks ago I heard Henry Paulson comment on a "taks" ahead of us (or him or them...). In context it was clear that the word he used was one that would normally be pronounced tæsk. Was this a dialect difference? I assumed no because I hadn't heard it from him before and I haven't heard it from him since. So I figured it was just a mistake.

We move on from mistakes. And the peevologists? They don't always. They pick on typos and 'purposeful' spelling mistakes. But that's spelling -- not language. Peevologists really don't pick on actual language mistakes.

Why not? Why is it that complaints about sloppy language don't focus on actual mistakes? They focus on systems that have become regular and follow rules. Their complaints grow louder and more troubled in rough proportion to the regularity of the system that creates those forms.

There are those who will snicker and rattle when a speaker stumbles or stutters on a line. But such surface forms are rarely used as examples of the language deteriorating or of speakers getting lazy. Why? Those are precisely examples of the rules of language breaking down. That's when we see real evidence of what happens when a rule doesn't govern speech.

I suggest that explaining why such performance errors are ignored will help illuminate the nefarious premise of many judgements about usage.

Convention is necessary, but that those who adopt another convention are not less intelligent, less capable or less flexible.

These complaints are ultimately not about performance. They are about a system.

The fear that a language system will take over might not be based on a judgment about those who use it, but it promotes itself and seeks to replicate itself by promoting an eventual judgement through explicit rationalization.

In order to counter the judged system, an oppression of that system is planned and executed.

When you judge a system you judge the people who use that system.

When you seek to categorically subvert a convention you subvert the people who rely, even occasionally, on that convention.

This judgement further extends to judgment of ability to perform non-linguistic tasks.

Everybody makes mistakes so it's impossible to separate and stratify groups based on who makes a mistake.

Judgment that both seeks and relies on separation is the heart of bigotry.

One might be amused

Jeff Deck and his red-pen rovers stepped in some legal trouble and now they're talking about it.

A few months ago I commented on some of their less than insightful comments and corrections. A short while later I mentioned the editors' escapades to a friend and she responded with a "cool" of approval. I felt the need to point out -- she must not have read my post -- that some of their ideas were mistaken. But I agreed that if it's done with the right attitude there's no harm.

But is that possible? Perhaps it's only a bad attitude that leads to such a cross-country correction crusade. And it's arrogance that imposes a correction on people who have not asked for it. And it's ignorance that leads to defacement of a landmark.

For a while after the arrest the TEAL website has been a single page with simple black text promising a statement.

Now it's a single page with simple black text making the statement.

The punctuation and spelling are clean. But the prose is rough and heavy. I'll pick out the salient clumsy construction:

…one should not vandalize…
… for one to think that one can tell others…
…one never knows…
…One should ask…
…one cannot underestimate.…
…One risks tarnishing the image…
…One might, for example, be…
…One might also face…
…One’s sense of civic duty…
…should prevent one from…

And that's within four short paragraphs. So let's say that he chose this horrible pattern for effect. For humor. To be cute.

It's an ill effect. It's not funny. It's ugly. Three misplaced commas an unnecessary semi-colon a wrong there and two mistaken apostrophes would be less obtrusive than this clumsy form.

Read Dennis Baron's post.

Wut duz this say bout me?

Mignon Fogarty (Grammar Girl) doesn't say as many silly things as some of the other language commentators who focus on usage rather than actual language systems. But anyone who gives a lot of advice on any topic will eventually offer up a gem.

From Jan Rosen's story about peevology (she doesn't use that term) a line from Fogarty.

'If I were hiring someone for a job and knew they were on Twitter, I'd go on there and look,' she says. 'I don't think anything gives you a sense of a persona like a Twitter stream. They're so short and off-guard ... you learn about a person's attention to detail and about their opinions and daily habits.'

Such faith in such little data.

I'm not saying that employers don't do this. I'm not saying that people don't make up their mind based on something as silly as Twitter. And I'm not saying that it's wise not to care.

I'm just saying that people who think such quick and lite posts say a lot about the writer are wrong.

That's right. I wrote <lite>. And I meant it.

Perhaps that ellipsis in the quotation is important. Maybe her claim is more nuanced and reasonable than this. I'll just pick on the idea as I found it. I'm not going to make up my mind about Fogarty on so little evidence.


via John McIntyre

Relying on nuance to complain

When a complaint about language is merely a statement about preference I have no reason to argue against it. I have my preferences too. When it's based on faulty understanding or analysis of language structure or history my response should only go as far as saying that the logic is incorrect. So while the conclusion might still stand it needs a different rationale. But what if the complaint itself doesn't make any sense?

I've mentioned Minnesota Public Radio's Grammar Grater^® podcast a couple times before. As I've said before the show is pretty good at not complaining about language abuses. The writers usually accept that language change is not a sign of weakness. And I find no major fault with last week's contribution Episode 56: The Essence of an Expression.

The episode is "inspired" by Bryan from Seattle's very uninspired complaint. They quote him:

I hear time is of the essence all the time, and it's almost always misused. It does not mean we are in a hurry—it comes from contract law, and means that cited dates and times are part of the fundamental trade-offs in the contract, or part of its essence. It means that if something is supposed to happen by noon the next day, before the end of the year is not good enough.

My response: What are you complaining about Bryan? You're saying it means pretty much the same thing. That a task has to be accomplished before a certain point in time.

He gets a fair response. GG turns to the business law expertise of Paul Muilenberg who says The reality is that in almost every case, time is very important essentially means the same thing as we are in a hurry,

Bryan is probably picking on a reading of the phrase to mean 'we are in a hurry' but that's a peevishly chosen reading. The phrase is similar to 'remember there's a deadline' or 'time is running out.' Those are true at any point in a timeline and they don't directly mean 'we are in a hurry' or 'you should hurry up.' But they are really only used when the fact might affect behaviour. It is typically the context that leads the conversation implicature that it's worth noting that time is of the essence because we are uncomfortably close to that essential time.

It's not really the fault of GG but it is pretty clear that the listeners and readers feel it is their job to offer up simple complaints. The comment boards are riddled with peevological rants and opinions. Tho not uniformly. There are also comments disagreeing with the rants or just saying 'calm down.'

It's a fascinating if at times frustratingly common pattern of discussions about language being dominated by those who are just looking to shoehorn a complaint into an observation.

Just peruse this. No. Peruse it instead.

I think it was in high school when a friend told me that peruse doesn't really mean to read through quickly. But I don't think it was until after I met Buffy -- and we were playing one of those nerdy-wordy games coming up with as many autoantonyms as possible -- that I threw away the idea of such right and wrong meanings.

What is the right meaning of peruse? Of cleave? Of bound Of let? Of sanction? Of overlook? Of dust? Of enjoin?* (Keep playing on your own time).

Not all these pairs of are explained in the same way. Some are a coincidental similarity of once-distinct words. Some are due to semantic bifurcation from a single meaning.

Both processes occur naturally. But semantic sentinels pick on them unequally. Of all the words I listed I've only heard complaints about peruse.

Most recent is this admonition from the Minnesota mavens at Grammar Grater.

It turns out the word peruse means something different than browse.

(Follow the above link to read the copy or listen to the show below. It's a bit cheesy but at least it's short.)


Our well-meaning counselor Luke Taylor cites the Oxford Dictionary of Current English and the Random House Unabridged Dictionary to claim that peruse denotes a careful reading. But by taking the sense of careful back to the 1500s Mr Taylor doesn't explain why the other meaning (to read quickly) that emerged in the 1500s isn't equally valid. (The episode is actually written by Jennifer H.)

The show eventually rests on advice based on Fowler's vague reminder of the obvious: the suitability[...]is a matter of discreet (and often delicate) contextual choice.

Some citations can't make clear the distinction between a quick reading and a deliberate reading by mere context. Who knows what each of the following means? There's no way of knowing.

'Peruse this.'
'Did you peruse it?'
'He perused the book.'

But some sentences make it clear by context.

'I don't have time to peruse it so I'll just skim it.'
'If you're too busy you can just peruse it and that'll be enough.'

The OED provides this 1589 citation of George Puttenham's use of 'peruse' with an illumination:

An Epitaph is..pithie, quicke and sententious for the passer by to peruse, and iudge vpon without any long tariaunce (Arte Eng. Poesie I. xxviii. 45).

That's clear enough.

The argument that peruse means 'read carefully' and that 'read quickly' is a later use not yet ratified by the gods of English is another example of the recency illusion. Both meanings are well established since roughly the same time. A usage note in the OED explains that peruse has been a broad synonym for read since the 16th cent., encompassing both careful and cursory reading.

I don't have a copy of Fowler's nearby but Taylor claims that the advice on suitability is from clarification on the use of formal words.

I don't know if I've previously heard the argument that a polysemous word should always mean one thing in a formal setting and another thing in a less formal setting. That might not be Taylor's actual point but he's approaching something like it. Why is there the specific mention that in formal settings unambiguous usage is important? Isn't ambiguity an issue wherever it comes up? Is this the old lie about formal language being more rule driven and careful than informal language?

This looks a lot like a wink and a nudge to an elitist shibboleth. I guess if you want to prove that you belong in a formal setting just make sure that you always use peruse the 'proper' way. Only those curs down in the galley use it as a synonym of browse. Because they don't care about language as much as we do.

-----

*Buffy came up with enjoin.

Have red pen. Will travel. (part II)

But that first post was all about ambiguous structure and interpretation. The argument isn't about values and beliefs. What happens when I look at those.

OK. But this is just for fun. Like the TEAL folks, I'm neither looking to blame, nor chastise. (Actually I do chastise a little at the end.)

Issue 1:
On their about page the cruising copyeditors call these typos vile stains on the delicate fabric of our language. I disagree. This language is not delicate -- nor is its fabric. There is no danger here. The language is extremely resilient and relatively stable. And I don't think that typos are vile -- but I really don't care about overstatement.

Issue 2:
On the same page is the following claim: But slowly the once-unassailable foundations of spelling are crumbling. Once-unassailable? Are they serious? Written English has never been free of typos. No written language is. And anyone who has studied the stew-pot era of Middle English has to realize that we've moved towards uniformity not away from it.

Sub-issue 2.1: We believe that only through working together with vigilance and a love of correctness can we achieve the beauty of a typo-free society. It ain't gonna happen. And I happen to like what errors can tell us about the representation of language in the mind.

OK. So I disagree with some details in their statement of purpose. No big deal. But here's a statement I can't forgive -- Deck tells the story of a menu that listed corn beef instead of corned beef. They were going to fix it but on checking his Random House unabridged dictionary he found the alternate form listed. Perhaps, he worries, this is an example of a dictionary being too permissive. Permissive? What are dictionaries supposed to permit? No Mr Deck. This is an example of a dictionary accurately reporting the words people use. What else do you want a dictionary to do?

See Grant Barrett's advice on a dictionary purchase. Nowhere is there a suggestion that you buy a picky dictionary. The best dictionaries will push your boundaries. In all directions.

Think about it -- if dictionaries didn't report usage accurately, where would you go to find out what an unknown word means? Do you really want a dictionary constantly throwing up its hands and saying Sorry -- I don't want to tell you about that word because it's not how my favourite group speaks? We don't need dictionaries to tell us what we already know and to confirm the usage that we are already accustomed too. And how arrogant it is to think that the usage of certain groups doesn't deserve to be represented in a full description of the language. Dictionaries are best when they strive to present a body of the language broader than that which any individual already grasps. Or what's the OED for?

Have red pen. Will travel. (part I)

Mxrk has encouraged me to be kind to Jeff Deck and his migrant mavens over at TEAL. I heard about these galloping grammarians a few weeks ago over at Grammar Grater.

But why does Mxrk accuse me of hating any kind of corrections?

Because it's not true. I believe mistakes should be corrected by the appropriate parties. I think what he's getting at is my typical response to careless peevology: those complaints about language that falsely describe language. I also jump on those statements about language that show an irrational fear of change. I like the challenge of the argument.

Deck and his red-pen roamers travel around the country looking for typos and grammatical mistakes on signs. They correct them when they can. If they've got the money and the time and they do it without an attitude...fine. I don't care.

So how good are they at their mission? Not too bad. But there are some slips.

The site includes a blog with pictures and a rundown of the typos they have found. One post reports a minor punctuation issue on a sign: a missing comma in the following sentence.

The Museum's first taxidermist, John James Audubon was hired in the winter of 1819 to do taxidermy, build collections, and create exhibits.

Our faithful servant put a comma after Audubon because he believes "John James Audubon" is the appositive. There is some ambiguity here and some commenters disagree with him. So do I.

What we have is a fronted appositive. Consider a similar structure in the following sentences.

- A skilled stuntman, Evel Knievel set several world records.

- A strict disciplinarian, my father never let me watch more than 4 hours of TV a day.

- A prolific writer, Fouqué gathered much of his material from Scandinavian sagas and myths. (online Brittanica -- subscription needed)

The indefinite article makes the intended structure especially clear in the second sentence where I'm certainly not using my father to specify a strict disciplinarian. The definite article on the sign makes the intention less clear. But if the name is the appositive we have a strange sentence explaining why the first taxidermist, any first taxidermist, was hired. If the sentence ended with the date the first taxidermist was hired then the name as appositive would make more sense.

One commenter even mentions what I believe is the best clue to the intended meaning. If the name is the appositive the simplified sentence would be The Museum's first taxidermist was hired to do taxidermy, build collections, and create exhibits which is grammatical but has an odd redundancy.

In a response to comments Mr Deck defends his reading saying Audubon may have been mentioned in the title, but this is his first mention in the text itself. Ergo the newspapery construction that they had originally did not work. So Deck is arguing that this structure can't occur on first mention. But he gives no reason why this should be so.

Because it isn't so.

It's fine as a first mention. It was good enough for the above Britannica entry on Fouqué right after a heading. And it's fine for the little bio of Patrik Ervell on this page that begins

- The son of Swedish parents, Patrik Ervell grew up in Northern California.

The only previous mention of Ervell? In the heading.

Deck then adds an 'and besides...' argument claiming that the full name would not likely be used as a subject because since such a structure only works when the name has already been mentioned only the first or last name would be used. This simply isn't true.

Even when an individual has been mentioned the full name might be used:
The son of Guianan parents, René Maran was born in Martinique fifty three years ago [1887-1960]. (here)

A gifted musician, Bill Evans studied classical music prior to his lifelong commitment to jazz in the late 1940s. (pdf here)

The eldest of fourteen children, Léon-Pamphile Lemay was born 5 January 1837 at Lotbinière, Quebec... (here)

The full name can be mentioned any time a writer wants to stress it. Sometimes a little known middle name is used for the effect of biographical detail. But whatever the reason for the use -- Deck's argument falls over.

(continued)

Not that I care about authorial intent...

Any writer who wants to establish the snobbery of a character has only to throw in a line in which the elitist corrects someone's grammar. It's quick realistic and obvious. But the characters aren't to blame. They were made that way. I'm not about to start tilting at fictional windbags.

And what television character is written to be more of a snob than Frasier Crane? Well maybe Diane Chambers...

One possibly nuanced exchange from season 9 of Frasier caught my attention. This was written into episode 12: Mother Load: Part 1.

Frasier and Martin commenting on Daphne's decision to move out of Frasier's home so she can live with Niles:

Martin  : Well I guess from now on it's just you and I.
Frasier : "You and me" Dad.
Martin  : [sarcastically] This is gonna be great.

Just how many characterizations did writer Lori Kirkland fold into this exchange?

1. Frasier is a snob.


2. He's a prescriptivist.


3. He's aware of hypercorrection -- specifically that the nominative I is often used when the dative/accusative me is the prescribed form.


4. He's so eager to make the distinction that he ignores an opportunity to connect with his father and instead remarks on his grammar.


5. He's so eager to show his knowledge that he offers an 'incorrection' to an utterance that he mistakenly thinks is a hypercorrection.

Frasier was one of those 'intelligent' award-winning shows, which I've come to think simply means that the critics think they caught a bunch of jokes that most viewers probably missed.

But a bit of dialogue like this in which the snob is left unchallenged --an unresolved fallibility in which a peevologist hamming it up could be hoist with his own petard but gets away with it -- might be a well-crafted portrait deserving of the praise usually slathered on tired literary references and bad puns.

Surprising connections

I wrote a post about Buffy's grandmother's interesting phrases. I searched for one phrase ("ready for the fox farm") and found only three Google™ hits. One of those hits was in a book by Margo Howard presenting a collection of letters from her mother Ann Landers.

In a comment Jan Freeman not only directed me to some information about fox farm in DARE but she also indicated that she had contacted Howard and asked her about the term. Howard contacted me and told me that she enjoyed the post and in a quick volley of emails she shared a few more quick and fun details about her mother and her appreciation for Hubert Humphrey and his sense of humour.

What a pleasing network these interwebs can be. If I had known that a few people are actually reading I would have edited a little more carefully.

To those of you who read stop by occasionally -- my thanks. To those of you who share the site with others -- my thanks. To those of you who get in touch -- my thanks.

By the way: Jan Freeman is the fine thinker who coined the term peevologist which I have used several times on this site and in classes I teach. I believe the term captures very effectively the agenda of those people who are intolerant of real language but think it's because they love it -- my thanks.

Being a jerk doesn't quite capture it

The other day in our friendly office the topic of decimate came up. I think I must have brought up in the middle of one of my rolling-eye-rants about the LSSU list.

One person in the room had never heard that decimate meant (a long time ago) to destroy one tenth. Everyone else had heard that but didn't care. Everyone agreed that as the word is used now it is understood to mean the destruction of almost all and some had assumed it meant more specifically all but one tenth.

I made the point that almost no one uses it today to mean the destruction of one tenth. And if they did mean it that way who would understand them? (There was an on-and-on-and-ongoing ADS-L thread about evidence that anyone uses it to mean 'destroy one tenth' anymore.)

Well some people clearly do. But only because they want to prove that they know the etymology. But that's being an ass. It's obfuscation in the guise of appearing smart. It's showing that you know enough about an etymology to use an original term but not enough about communication (and people) to realize that others expect that you speak with the intention of being understood. This is similar to insisting on using the word niggardly and holding firm to the meaning of cheap or miserly. Yes it does mean that. But it's clear that it will be misunderstood by many. Many.

So the suggestion arose -- and I like it:

We need a word for the act of using a word in order to prove that you know what it has meant in some contexts -- even tho or more likely because you know that people will misunderstand or take offense.

Any suggestions?

Thou cut'st my tongue off with a golden axe

Every year someone up at Lake Superior State University releases a list of banished words and phrases.

The write-up of the list's history makes it clear that the list is "tongue-in-cheek" and it was all part of "a publicity ploy" for the little school up north. I have no problem with the fact that the PR department puts out the list. They're just as entitled to silly ideas about language as anyone.

Do I have problems with the list? Well the language won't be any better if people 'obey' the ban. And it doesn't really give any good advice to improve writing -- other than the typical 'avoid clichés' advice. And there are some words and phrases on the list that have lost some of the "pop" (banned) they once had. And there are plenty of words and phrases that I'm less likely to use because they just aren't my style. I might think they're trendy or cutesy such as "webinar" or maybe I just don't know how to use a phrase like "it is what it is" meaningfully. But sometimes words start to pop in other directions and some new and clever terms start to work without the trendy baggage. You should hear what people used to say about that awful word, movie.

So why do the LSSU PR folks think they need to stop new words from entering common use? "Webinar" isn't there yet but it might make it. I resisted blog for a while because it seemed too 'nickname-y'. But the word has lost some of its hip tone (to my ear) and now I hear it as a pretty direct and clearly defined word. I guess after several years I can say about the word blog "it is what it is." See! language changes and so do its users. Yay! And if web seminars become a common enough forum they might just take the obvious sobriquet. Scott Lassiter grumbles "Yet another non-word trying to worm its way into the English language due to the Internet." Listen Scott: they all start off as non-words. Even Internet.

The peevologists' arguments are mostly as weak and old as we would expect. And there are occasional hints at language rage too -- "Banish it before I go vigilante" says the feisty Ben Martin from Adelaide, South Australia about the changing meaning of "random". Some more this year's proscriptions:

• PERFECT STORM – “Overused by the pundits on evening TV shows to mean just about any coincidence.” – Lynn Allen, Warren, Michigan.

The meaning as I have seen it used adds an important sense of the coincidence of several necessary factors to bring about a specific and rare result. It works quickly to a specific intention.

• WATERBOARDING

The technique is horrible. And I'd like to ban it from the sanctioned interrogation tactics. But what's wrong with the word? I just don't get this one. Do they simply want people to stop talking about the technique or do they want every speaker to have to go through a description of the repeated and sustained submersion of subjects instead of using the single well-known word?

• WORDSMITH/WORDSMITHING – “I’ve never read anything created by a wordsmith - or via wordsmithing - that was pleasant to read.” – Emily Kissane, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Yeah! And all those damned silversmiths and goldsmiths and gunsmiths and locksmiths that always ruin their work too. If only we'd stopped the word!

• AUTHOR/AUTHORED – “In one of former TV commentator Edwin Newman’s books, he wonders if it would be correct to say that someone ‘paintered’ a picture?” – Dorothy Betzweiser, Cincinnati, Ohio.

What's next? No one can pilot a plain or proctor an exam or police our use of language?

• SURGE – “‘Surge’ has become a reference to a military build-up. Give me the old days, when it referenced storms and electrical power.” – Michael F. Raczko, Swanton, Ohio.
  
  “Do I even have to say it? I can’t be the first one to nominate it…put me in line. From Iraq to Wall Street to the weather forecast – ’surge’ really ought to recede.” – Mike Lara, Colorado.
  
  “This word came out in the context of increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Can be used to explain the expansion of many things (I have a surge in my waist) and it’s use will grow out of control…The new Chevy Surge, just experience the roominess!” – Eric McMillan, Mentor, Ohio.

I don't understand if these people are against the widening or the narrowing or just the phonetics of the word. All silly peeves.

• BACK IN THE DAY – “Back in the day, we used ‘back-in-the-day’ to mean something really historical. Now you hear ridiculous statements such as ‘Back in the day, people used Blackberries without Blue Tooth.’” – Liz Jameson, Tallahassee, Florida.

Next year will feature the horrible misuse of "Oh yeah. That reminds me" when you mean to indicate that you just remembered something.

• RANDOM – Popular with teenagers in many places.
  “Over-used and usually out of context, i.e. ‘You are so random!’ Really? Random is supposed to mean ‘by chance.’ So what I said was by chance, and not by choice?” – Gabriel Brandel, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
  

It's not "out of context" just because it's a context that you don't like. And do you also hate that odd was a numerical designation and it referred to a remainder but now it means 'strange' or 'weird'? And do you hate that 'weird' meant 'supernatural' or 'magical' and is it further frustrating that that adjective was the attributive use of the noun from OE wyrd meaning 'fate' or 'destiny'? You must hate this language.

• SWEET – “Youth lingo overuse, similar to ‘awesome.’ I became sick of this one immediately.” – Gordon Johnson, Minneapolis, Minnesota

The list is a little late on this one. Waye Braver of Manistique, Michigan claims that this "became popular with the advent of the television show ‘South Park’" but I remember it was already huge by 1983 when I moved from Maryland to Michigan. I picked up the use and when I went back to visit some friends in MD and I used 'sweet' meaning 'cool' or 'awesome' they all laughed at me. But they were 5th graders and such intolerance made sense from their limited little minds.

And how about this? A snowclone made the list. ‘BLANK’ is the new ‘BLANK’ or ‘X’ is the new ‘Y’ has been banned.

[See the comments where Waye reminds me that he didn't say the show created the phrase -- just that it popularized it. There is some validity to this distinction and I have responded in a comment to the sense in which I see the distinction. He also provides the correct spelling of his name. LSSU dubs him "Wayne" but his name is Waye.]

(hat tip to DL at Sycamore Review)
_

What's another word for 'full of impact'?

I'm watching the Thank You for Smoking with the audio track playing the commentary of Jason Reitman Aaron Eckhart and David Koechner.

In a comment on one scene Koechner praises Reitman for including a small but effective detail. "It's impactful" he says.

Impactful gets 93,200 hits on Google™. The first hit: Paul Brians' entry from his huge list of common errors. His entry's are short and clear. About impactful he says "this term does not appear in most dictionaries and is not well thought of by traditionalists." He suggests using 'influential' or 'effective' instead.

The second hit is Dictionary.com's entry culled from Webster's New Millenium. (Dictionary.com is not a true dictionary; But it does provide entries taken from dictionaries)

The third hit is Michael Quinion's discussion of why such words are disliked by some. Nice piece. Read it when you're done here.

The fourth hit is the Urban Dictionary entry.

The fifth hit is an ABC NewsRadio rant "Presented by Kel Richards" about the word. He writes:

Well, I’m always happy to cheerfully deride ugly new words that we don’t need – and the word is question here is impactful – and it’s certainly ugly, and certainly unnecessary (the two words 'with impact' will do the same job).

Richards blames American journalists for producing this horror.

So I disagree with Brians' estimation of the importance of traditionalist opinions. These "traditionalists" are choosing to dislike words for weak reasons. But at least Brians is alerting the reader to a real concern. If you care what traditionalists think then avoid the word.

But Richards is trying too much here. What exactly makes a word ugly? Really. What? And what word isn't unnecessary if your argument is merely to suggest using another word or phrase in it's place. Brians suggests 'influential' or 'effective' which don't capture the right meaning. Influential has a sense of powerful and able to change an opinion or perspective to a particular end and effective has a sense of suited to a particular purpose. Impactful is a little more basic than that with a sense of characterised by ability to get or focus attention; possibly memorable with less of the sense of purpose or influence driven by an agenda.

Richards argument that the word is "certainly unnecessary" gets completely tripped up by his suggestion that "'with impact' will do the same job." Really? the same job?

"That was a very impactful sequence."
"That was a very with impact sequence."

"Her intense gaze and ability to speak with impact make her a fierce advocate."
"Her intense gaze and ability to speak impactful make her a fierce advocate."

Impactful isn't a an adverb. Yet.

Right now it's true that some people don't know the word and they wince or twitch on hearing it. But all it takes is enough people using it to turn the naysayers into more obvious and tiresome pedagogues.

So I'll keep using it when it works better than another word. But mostly I'll use it because I'm an American, Mr Richards. And if I don't use 'impactful' the traditionalists win.
_

Annan shrugged

The Ridger's recent post about Katie Couric is not based on a prescriptivist argument or a peevish opposition to language change. It's an honest question about why Couric structures her claim the way she does. I'll get back to it in my next post. But for now it sent me down memory lane to a 2005 interview with Kofi Annan.

In that interview with the then UN Secretary General, Couric said to him "you literally have the weight of the world on your shoulders." This was picked-up and bemoaned by bloggers and defenders of literal purity everywhere. It can't be literal they claim. Literal means there is no metaphoric sense to my claim. It means the claim happened in actuality. It means that there is no exaggeration.

Well except that that's not true. Literally has been changing use.

But Couric's claim to Annan is a fun one because she apparently intends to use literal just as the peevologists would have her use it. She is claiming that the entire world is literally Annan's concern. Saying to others 'you have the weight of the world on your shoulders' is usually an observation that their duties are onerous. That they feel great pressure. And we exaggerate the scope of their concerns. When someone is worried about everyone in the office or every problem at the school or every crime reported on the local news we call the reach of their cares 'the world': even tho it's not it might as well be because it's beyond their control.

So I'm going to give Couric a pass on this one (as if passes are mine to give and withhold). When she added "literally" she signaled that the scope she mentioned was not an exaggeration. Yes -- there was still some synechdoche: calling all the people on earth "the world" -- there was still some metaphorical figuring: political concerns being "weight"; and his "his shoulders" used as an image of his awareness of those concerns -- but not everything in the statement has to be free of metaphor. There is a literal sense still at work in the claim worth calling literal: his concerns were global in nature. He had within his job description the responsibility for decisions and policies that affected every nation on this planet.

'Literalness' is a problematic claim. Metaphors can be live or dead. A word can have a persistent implication of proper and extended usage. But metaphors will often settle in and become part of a word's commonly assumed meaning in ways that used to be merely figurative. To "handle stress" no longer sounds like much of a metaphor because 'handle' has broken away from a strict meaning of 'to manipulate and manage with one's palm and phalanges.'

Literally on cloud 9 - Probably not actually up there. But very clearly and unambiguously elated.

Literally climbing up the walls - Mr Parker perhaps. Everyone else would probably mean that the agitation was enough to cause excessive movement and frantic motion.

Literally losing his mind - If he's mentally ill some would say this works. Others will hold it accountable to a second level of literalness claiming that there is still gray matter in the skull and activity in the brain. so...

Literally going crazy - Fine right? The drudges will point out that 'going' means moving somewhere so he might be becoming crazy but he's not actually moving anywhere in a crazy manner. (Really. Those people are out there.)

Literally strong as an ox - Unlikely but possible. Certainly could be stronger than some ox. A weak and anemic little baby ox? So the pedants will demand proof.

Literally ran out of gas - Another one that might encourage some to find levels of literalness. It's story time:

If someone is working on a task and gets tired and she says 'I literally just ran out of gas' she might mean that she really had to stop.

So Peevy-1 comes along and says 'Nonono--you don't run on an internal combustion engine so you couldn't run out of the same fuel that allows an automobile to run.'

The next week Peevy-1 is on the highway and his car sputters. Telling the story he says 'I literally just ran out of gas' and Peevy-2 says 'Nonono--your car ran out of gas. You don't run on gas.' Peevy-1 thinks about it and loves the correction. (They're all grammar masochists.)

Peevy-2 is bragging about this to the English class she teaches so she instructs her students 'If you say literally you have to say my car literally ran out of gas.'

A hand shoots up from the front row and and Peevy-3 (a promising young student) says 'but was the car "inside" a bunch of fuel and did the car actually "run" with two legs "out" of that body of fuel? It didn't "literally" "run" "out of" gas.' (The student uses 'air quotes'.)

Does peevy-2 realize that this is spinning out of control? Or does peevy-2 say 'You are going to make a great English teacher one day.'

----
image from here