# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/101 "2021-03-18T15:48:43Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > 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. **Moderator Note** Let’s keep the political potshots out of GQ. Colibri GQ Moderator ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/102 "2021-03-18T16:09:45Z")
We’re allowed to use our own lingo, for twenty minutes, in the Marianas trench. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/103 "2021-03-18T17:57:34Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Why should they care if you as an outsider find their usage difficult or opaque or funny? Because they are presenting to us. In that context idiosyncratic use of words is either done out of ignorance of how idiosyncratic the usage is, or intentional for some reason. When done by consultants I suspect the latter is more frequently the case. ---
**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, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/104 "2021-03-18T18:04:54Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > YMMV but AFAIC TPTB would never allow the teemings to develop our own lingo. Og forbid. IANAM, but as an ordinary poster my WAG is that it’s at least allowed in the MMP. All the Mumpers gettin’ sheveled and caffeinatin’ over at MPSIMS would agree. Even swampy and OYKW. ---
**Author:** ![Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slow_moving_vehicle/32/291_2.png) [@Slow\_Moving\_Vehicle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slow_Moving_Vehicle)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/105 "2021-03-18T22:30:18Z")
> [@gnoitall](#): > > 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. As I first heard the story, the King described it as “awful, amusing, and artificial”, all three words whose meanings have drifted. But when I checked the source, I found that was something of an urban legend. The original warrant, which I found on a site called [quoteinvestigator.com](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/31/st-pauls-cathedral/), reads: > [@](#): > > > … among divers Designs which have been presented to Us, We have particularly pitched upon one, as well because We found it **very artificial, proper, and useful** ; as because it was so ordered that it might be built and finish’d by Parts: We do therefore by these Presents signify Our Royal Approbation of the said Design, hereunto annexed; and do will and require you forthwith to proceed according to the said Design, beginning with the East-end or Quire, and accomplishing the same with the present Stock of Money, and such Supplies as may probably accrue, according to the Tenor of the Commission to you directed; and for so doing this shall be your Warrant. Given at Our Court at Whitehall, the 14th Day of May, 1675, in the 27th Year of Our Reign. > > By His Majesty’s command, HENRY COVENTRY. The article cites a 1903 history of English churches that claimed the dean of the cathedral called Wren’s design “most awful and artificial”. Later this was taken up by different newspaper columns on language change, including a 1938 magazine article that reproduced the quote as “amusing, awful, and artificial”, and attributed it to King James. Other stories credited it to King William III and to Queen Anne. But the only solid citation is the warrant of Charles, where he only used “artificial”. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/106 "2021-03-18T23:41:40Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > What I don’t get is people who object to “literally” and cry about its loss of meaning don’t seem to object to similar words when used as emphatics like “actually,” “really,” and “honestly,” to name a few. Some of us are fastidious about how we use those, as well. Anyway, what I object to is the loss of its previous use, more than the fact that it’s being used for something else. The use of “actually” as an intensifier dulls its literal sense, but it doesn’t nullify it. If “literally” is mainly understood as “figuratively,” it’s a net loss, because there’s already a host of words that mean “figuratively,” and precious few that mean “literally.” > [@DPRK](#): > > We have some professional writers and editors on this forum who would know about the editing of such language and whether or not it is considered bad writing. When I was in college majoring in English, adverbs in general were frowned upon. Unless we were making a comparison, and wanted to reuse a verb for the sake of parallelism, there was no use for adjectives. In other words, “stroll” was better than “walk slowly,” unless the entire point was that it was slower than some other instance of walking. > [@pulykamell](#): > > To me, that feels like a usage of “officially” I grew up with, when it’s contrasted with a “but” or something afterwards. “The Official Story is that he slipped on the soap. However…” > [@bob\_2](#): > > the sentece \*I literally coined money > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > is problematic in that “coined” properly means created, invented or stamped out. However, it is acceptable usage to describe a situation in which money is easily come by. It hits my ear as wrong, and I desperately want to change it to “minted” money. I don’t know whether it’s because that’s not exactly what “coined” means, or because it somehow sounds redundant. ---
**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 19, 2021, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/107 "2021-03-19T00:07:23Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > It hits my ear as wrong, and I desperately want to change it to “minted” money. I don’t know whether it’s because that’s not exactly what “coined” means, or because it somehow sounds redundant. Looking at [ngrams](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=coined%2C+minted&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccoined%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cminted%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Ccoined%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cminted%3B%2Cc0), “coined” has been overwhelmingly the more common word over the past 200 years, usually by a 10 to 1 ratio. A mint is the place where money is coined, so the extension of “making” or “creating” as a verb would naturally arise from the active “coin” rather than the passive “mint.” ---
**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 19, 2021, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/108 "2021-03-19T07:37:04Z")
Just a small note to say that you messed up the quotes – no big deal, but I did not say the thing you accidentally quoted me as saying. That was the rest of the sentence written by **bob\_2**. ---
**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 19, 2021, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/109 "2021-03-19T11:44:05Z")
True. Each case is a little different. But collectively they make McWhorter’s main point that words change in meaning (duh), sometimes in fun and unexpected ways (also duh). Not rocket science…but worth repeating, to counter the human tendency toward attachment to illusory stasis. Ommmmm… ---
**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 19, 2021, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/110 "2021-03-19T22:21:07Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > > [@pulykamell](#): > > > > What I don’t get is people who object to “literally” and cry about its loss of meaning don’t seem to object to similar words when used as emphatics like “actually,” “really,” and “honestly,” to name a few. > > Some of us are fastidious about how we use those, as well. Anyway, what I object to is the loss of its previous use, more than the fact that it’s being used for something else. The use of “actually” as an intensifier dulls its literal sense, but it doesn’t nullify it. If “literally” is mainly understood as “figuratively,” it’s a net loss, because there’s already a host of words that mean “figuratively,” and precious few that mean “literally.” I don’t know what people used to convey what you mean by “literally” in the early 1800s - but they didn’t use “literally” (“literally” being used for another purpose). I can think of a wide variety of choices for conveying actuality - though most of them are informal (“There was no-kidding/no-shit/straight-up/honest-to-God/hand-to-God blood coming out of his eyes”). > [@wolfpup](#): > > 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. Weirdly, I can imagine the evolution of the use of “literally” going a different way - since the word was associated with words and writing, it could have become associated with literary concepts like “figurativeness” rather than with actuality (that evolution might even make more sense than what occurred in our history - language does what language does). ---
**Author:** ![eburacum\_45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum_45/32/3385_2.png) [@eburacum\_45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum_45)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2021, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/111 "2021-03-19T23:00:20Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > nice (adj.) > > late 13c., “foolish, ignorant, frivolous, senseless,” from Old French nice (12c.) “careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish,” from Latin nescius “ignorant, unaware,” literally “not-knowing,” from ne- “not” (from PIE root [\*ne-](https://www.etymonline.com/word/*ne-?ref=etymonline_crossreference) “not”) + stem of scire “to know” (see [science](https://www.etymonline.com/word/science?ref=etymonline_crossreference)). “The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj.” [Weekley] – from “timid, faint-hearted” (pre-1300); to “fussy, fastidious” (late 14c.); to “dainty, delicate” (c. 1400); to “precise, careful” (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to “agreeable, delightful” (1769); to “kind, thoughtful” (1830). Here’s Wellington describing the Battle of Waterloo, probably in the same decade that Jane Austen wrote her complaint about the looseness of the word. “It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life. … By God! I don’t think it would have been done if I had not been there.” Wellington meant it was ‘close, finely balanced, precarious’ rather than ‘agreeable or delightful’. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum\_45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum_45/32/3385_2.png) [@eburacum\_45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum_45)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2021, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/112 "2021-03-19T23:07:01Z")
Concerning _gaslighting_; I note that (during the First World War) the gas companies in the UK would use the gas pressure as advanced warning of an air attack by Zeppelins. If an air-raid was imminent the pressure would fluctuate up and down, and the lights would dim and grow bright. At least some of the people who went to see [Patrick Hamilton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Hamilton_(writer))’s 1938 stage play _[Gas Light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_Light)_ would remember this fluctuation with some sense of trepidation, and this may have contributed to the tension. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/113 "2021-03-20T00:17:15Z")
> [@eburacum\_45](#): > > At least some of the people who went to see [Patrick Hamilton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Hamilton_(writer))’s 1938 stage play _[Gas Light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_Light)_ would remember this fluctuation with some sense of trepidation, and this may have contributed to the tension. There was also some irony in the name: the lights dimming was actually _unintentional_. All the other things Bella’s (play)/Paula’s (movie) husband did were deliberately designed to make her doubt herself-- except the lights. He was simply searching the attic in secret, but whenever he did, using the gas in the attic caused the lights in the rest of the house to dim. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/114 "2021-03-20T03:06:56Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Now now, prescriptivist griping is an important part of linguistic evolution! Seriously: human beings are built not only to change the way we use words, but to create normative structures that resist changing the way we use words. And a good thing, because without that tension things could get chaotic. You still want one generation to be able to communicate with the one before and the one after, even as things change. And it was touched upon upthread, part of the issue with changes in some meanings has to do with oversuse. Abuse of adverb forms and other intensifiers is one aspect of it; in my previous paragraph there is no need to say “actually communicate” but the temptation to throw that in for emphasis is strong. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Scores of classics break all the rules and still manage to be banging good stories I have read, that to be good at breaking the rules , you have to be good at knowing what are the rules you are breaking. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > It’s more that they are hearing what they want to hear and accepting it without question. Nobody is trying to make the opposition believe they are crazy. They are just straight - up lying for the benefit of those who believe. That is, pandering and demagoguery. But “gaslighting” sounds like, well, like you have a cool cultural referent. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I’ve also seen the term used for plain old contradiction or disagreement whose validity the contradicted party just doesn’t want to confront or acknowledge. True. Even if they ARE wrong, their insisting on it would not be not “gaslighting”. Just common pigheadedness. Or outright lying. . ---
**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 20, 2021, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/115 "2021-03-20T03:41:06Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > I have read, that to be good at breaking the rules , you have to be good at knowing what are the rules you are breaking. That is said about a lot of things (like my profession, photography), but I’m not sure I agree. It’s a pithy adage I used to adhere to, but like most pithy adages, it overgeneralizes. There are talents that come out of left field, who just have their own vocabulary, their own eye, their own ears (in the case of music), and _don’t_ know the rules. But they produce beautiful, interesting works and have an instinct for it. Perhaps _not_ knowing the rules gives them more creative freedom and allows them to express themselves more uniquely and more personally. I just don’t like breaking down the creative process to tidbits like “you have to know the rules to break the rules.” No, you don’t. For a certain type of person (like me) that helps. For others, it hinders. ---
**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 20, 2021, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/116 "2021-03-20T03:45:39Z")
IOW true “outsider art”. ---
**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 20, 2021, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/117 "2021-03-20T03:49:49Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I just don’t like breaking down the creative process to tidbits like “you have to know the rules to break the rules.” No, you don’t. For a certain type of person (like me) that helps. For others, it hinders. Probably for some rare geniuses that is true, but I’ve helped a lot of new writers, and 99% of the time, “I don’t need rules, I’m an artist” means, “I’m not that good and I don’t plan on doing any work to improve my craft.” Also consider that a lot of artists who claim not to use /know the rules have internalized the rules just by the sheer volume of work they have exposed themselves to. They break the rules because they already understand the rules innately. Others have to work to understand it. And of course understanding it doesn’t mean it’s suddenly easy to do. As I am learning right now. ---
**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 20, 2021, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/118 "2021-03-20T04:12:31Z")
I’m not really even thinking that. I mean, look at the Beatles, for instance. They didn’t really “know” the rules in any formal way – sure, we can say they internalized it by being around music. But that’s the same with language – we “learn” the rules by internalizing the language around us. There’s a secondary set of formal rules that we have to learn by being taught them. I don’t think the formal set is necessarily necessary to create successful works. The Beatles and many musicians did fine without knowing a lick about music theory or what rules they were breaking or why they were breaking them when they were breaking them. It just sounded good. And there is always a segment of the creative population like that. I just hate those kinds of generalizations. I used to have that rigid attitude with photographers under my purview, and it tends toward, I feel, homogenization. That rule does work for me; but I’ve met other photographers – and those are the ones whose work excites me – who do everything “wrong” but whose work looks right. It’s really the darnedest thing. Anyhow, I think I set this off on a philosophical tangent. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/119 "2021-03-20T06:02:13Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’ve seen an expansion in the use of “officially”, especially from my kids, and it seems to have evolved to mean almost the opposite of the standard definition. As in “officially he’s supposed to be the best guy on the team, but the truth is he’s over-rated”. That’s like saying: “on paper”. In that sense, I think it is similar to “officially”. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2021, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039/120 "2021-03-20T08:28:44Z")
Yeah, in that sense, “officially” means “according to conventional wisdom,” or something similar. It doesn’t mean _literally_ officially (heh), in that it has been dictated by an authoritative body. But the peer pressure of conventional wisdom can act very much like an authoritative body, so the usage of “officially” in this manner does actually make sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-linguistic-phenomenon/938039.md?page=7)