# What is this linguistic phenomenon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 16, 2021, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039 "2021-03-16T18:10:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/81 "2021-03-18T04:29:26Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > Using “literally” to mean “actually” is already a debasement of the word - it means “regarding words or letters,” … Quite true, and a good point. But one can see how the meaning of “regarding words or letters” evolved to the related meaning of “exactly as written” and the word began to take on the job of emphasizing that a particular expression was not meant figuratively. As with my earlier comments about the nuanced different meanings of “actually”, this is an understandable evolution, and can still be argued as related to its original meaning. What I have a problem with is its misuse as a completely arbitrary intensifier (not necessarily its use by skilled writers to intensify a closely related metaphor). It’s this misuse that has turned it into a confusing contronym. Looking back now on that extract from McWhorter’s book (post #71), I must acknowledge that I see what he was getting at with the David Hume quote, but I still say his argument is inconsistent. The first quote, “He is a fortunate man to be introduced to such a party of fine women at his arrival; it is literally to feed among the lilies”, is clearly a metaphor: fine women and lilies are not food. The third one is also clearly a metaphor: Fanny Kemble did not actually “coin money”; she was just paid well. But unlike the other two, the Hume quote is not metaphorical, unless one only considers the long-forgotten original meaning of the word; Thomas Otway really did literally die of starvation. > [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](#): > > Another example for the OP: in his 1675 royal warrant approving Sir Christopher Wren’s design for St. Paul’s Cathedral, King Charles II called it “very artificial, proper, and useful”; _artificial_ here meaning “made with artifice, well-crafted”. That’s a great example of semantic drift. Today calling something “very artificial” would be an insult. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/82 "2021-03-18T05:02:22Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I don’t know if it fits with what the OP is referring to, but often in legal briefs or court opinions, the word “clearly” is used (overused) when the author is unable to support his or her argument with solid cites and wishes to overstate the conclusion. > > . . . However, typically it is used by one straining to make his or her cases or opinions fit the not so clear conclusion that one is trying to reach. This reminds me of a game I and another math student played in 11th grade, which was collecting the “universal justifiers” we found in math textbooks. That is, statements that something is clearly so, without justifying them. Our best examples were the ubiquitous: - It is clear from the diagram that . . . and - Simplifying, we get . . . ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/83 "2021-03-18T11:56:11Z")
Right. McWhorter recounts THREE stages in the semantic story of “literally”: 1. According to actual written letters; 2. Actually (not figuratively), even if no actual letters were involved; 3. Emphatically (often, figuratively). ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/84 "2021-03-18T12:12:25Z")
It should be called _goebbeling_, as in Goebbels the propaganda minister. Tell a lie enough until it’s believed. There are 70M folks in our country that prove the concept. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/85 "2021-03-18T12:17:04Z")
I figure once a word is used to mean “actually,” it’s only a matter of time before it will be used emphatically (as happened with “verily” (i.e. “very”)). ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/86 "2021-03-18T13:26:21Z")
I am becoming quite annoyed by people using “gaslighting” as a synonym to plain ol’, lying. We already have plenty of words for lying. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/87 "2021-03-18T13:33:27Z")
One group of word use offenders to bring up: consultants. My organization recently hired a consulting group to review an aspect of our business practice. Their presentation kept referring to “analog organizations” … maybe I was dense but it took me quite a while to understand that they were simply talking about other groups somewhat like our organization. It clearly was a standard phrase for them. (Possibly they used the “analogue” spelling, not sure.) “Analog” has a meaning used as an adjective - continuously variable in contrast to variable only in discrete jumps, e.g. digital … records as opposed to CDs for example … and I was confused about what that had to do with healthcare groups. Once I realized they meant “analogous” I was able to follow much better! Does that consultant-speak sort of thing have a name? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/88 "2021-03-18T13:38:31Z")
“Analog” in that sense is probably older than the “continuously variable” sense. From the OED: > 1839 H. Hallam Introd. Lit. Europe IV. v. 408 Boileau is the analogue of Pope in French literature. > 1874 A. H. Sayce Princ. Compar. Philol. viii. 324 ‘Renard the Fox’ has its analogue among the Kafirs. > 1916 L. S. Marks Mech. Engineers’ Handbk. xiv. 1575 It is convenient to regard inductance as the analog of inertia in mechanics and capacity as the analog of elasticity. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/89 "2021-03-18T13:45:43Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > “Analog” in that sense is probably older than the “continuously variable” sense. I believe **DSeid** is talking about the adjectival use of “analog” (instead of “analogous”). All the examples you list are nouns. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/90 "2021-03-18T14:02:10Z")
Yes. Although referring to other organizations as analogs of ours would also have been unclear … ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/91 "2021-03-18T14:08:13Z")
See, that usage seems absolutely unremarkable to me. I use “analog” in that manner often enough, and I’m nowhere near the corporate sector. (Example sentence I found in a text from a couple weeks ago: “I don’t know if there’s a more gnocchi-looking analogue in Hungarian cuisine. Polish cuisine […] has _kopytka._” Or is this not quite the same meaning to you?) ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/92 "2021-03-18T14:15:48Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I believe **DSeid** is talking about the adjectival use of “analog” (instead of “analogous”). All the examples you list are nouns. I’d be annoyed by that use of “analog” as an adjective, but that’s because the word has a specific connotation at my workplace. Similar to **DSeid** , I expect. But every language has many speech communities in it, so we all learn to code switch and handle it. This example points to a specific characteristic of English. English does not keep words in their Latin-based categories well. Verbs become nouns, and nouns become verbs regularly. Adjectives and nouns switch often as well. It’s very natural to us and shouldn’t be surprising. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/93 "2021-03-18T14:15:52Z")
True. Using the noun as an adjective slipped right by me. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/94 "2021-03-18T14:58:26Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Right. McWhorter recounts THREE stages in the semantic story of “literally”: 1. According to actual written letters; 2. Actually (not figuratively), even if no actual letters were involved; 3. Emphatically (often, figuratively). True, he does, but not in that passage I quoted. There, the first example is clearly a metaphor in the sense of point (3), and so is the third. Sandwiched in between them is an example of point (2). It completely muddles his argument. Worse still is that he tries to justify the indiscriminate figurative use of “literally” to the point where it means the diametric opposite of its naturally evolved meaning. He does it by citing what he regards as numerous other contronyms in the English language, but few if any of them really are. For instance he cites the oft-used example of “fast” meaning “firmly fixed” or “steadfast” while also meaning “moving rapidly”. Hardly a contronym. It originates from the Old English fæst, “firmly fixed, steadfast”, which evolved to mean “strongly or vigorously” and eventually “quickly”. But it’s not as if “fast” has ever meant “slow”, and the old meaning mainly only survives in phrases like “hold fast”. It’s at best a very strained analogy. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/95 "2021-03-18T14:59:43Z")
To me “a more gnocchi-looking analogue” is a different usage. This is really using “analog organizations” in the place of “similar organizations” or “peer group”. It is, at least for the target audience, a _novel_ use of a noun as an adjective, which may be intended to make something sound more … impressive? The result however is to obfuscate. My WAG is that such is a common tactic in the consultant biz, hence my question regarding if there is a word for that action. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/96 "2021-03-18T15:08:01Z")
I meant to your comment about organizations being “analogs of ours,” which you said was also unclear to you, even though it’s being used as a noun there. That construction, to me, sounds normal. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/97 "2021-03-18T15:08:55Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > It is, at least for the target audience, a _novel_ use of a noun as an adjective, which may be intended to make something sound more … impressive? The result however is to obfuscate. I fully agree. This is an instance of that annoying practice of “biz-speak” that has been so widely criticized and parodied. I don’t know if there’s a formal word for it, but I’d just call it pompous pretentiousness; using language to define an elite in-group. When you first mentioned their use of the term “analog organizations” I honestly had no idea what it meant. The first thing that flashed through my mind is that analog technology is often the earlier generation of what eventually evolved to digital forms, and that “analog organizations” perhaps meant organizations stuck in traditional ways of doing things. It really is needless obfuscation. I find biz-speak very annoying, except when it’s so outlandish that it becomes unintentionally funny. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/98 "2021-03-18T15:40:31Z")
In my recollection of that story, the Royal Warrant had a fourth adjective describing how impressed Charles was with the design: “awful”. Because it filled him with awe. That word drifted a long way. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/99 "2021-03-18T15:44:41Z")
Business speak is merely jargon. > noun: **jargon** ; plural noun: **jargons** > > 1. special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand. Why should they care if you as an outsider find their usage difficult or opaque or funny? Literally every group - including the Dope - uses terminology that is specific to it and that insiders know and outsiders find impenetrable. Might as well castigate teenagers for using slang that only they understand. Wait, people do. The right question isn’t “what’s wrong with business speak?” but “what’s wrong with people?” I wish I had an answer for that. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/100 "2021-03-18T15:47:19Z")
YMMV but AFAIC TPTB would never allow the teemings to develop our own lingo. Og forbid. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039.md?page=6)