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.
That’s a great example of semantic drift. Today calling something “very artificial” would be an insult.
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:
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).
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.
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”)).
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?
“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.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.