# When the pedants go too far **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 20, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781 "2009-02-20T22:04:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/61 "2009-02-22T16:57:33Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Because that’s the way things are? What’s the problem with it? You complain about “redundancy”, but as far as I can see, this just amounts to taking issue with the existence of synonyms, which is… bizarre. And complaining about a single word having multiple meanings is no less bizarre; it’s not as though this is an isolated example of a rare and noteworthy phenomenon in language. Almost all words have multiple meanings, to some degree or another. It hasn’t seemed to have caused any harm so far. The problem is when you take a word that conveys a unique meaning and assign it a meaning that is already adequately described by other words. You simultaneously add redundancy and destroy a bit of expressive power. You add an unneeded usage while destroying one that is needed - perhaps the only single word that is adequate for its particular task. Don’t you dare try and pretend that this is outrage over the existence of synonyms; that’s a dishonest and specious claim and I’m fairly sure you know that. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/62 "2009-02-22T19:16:16Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Please don’t use “alternate” when you mean “alternative”. > > Pleeeeeeease! Again, your bible says you are wrong sir. [alternate](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternate) > [@M-W](#): > > 4: constituting an alternative \ > 5: alternative 3 [alternative](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternative) > [@M-W](#): > > 1: alternate 1 ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/63 "2009-02-22T19:27:33Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > \*As I said above, I have run into problems in the past where I used “literally” literally and was not understood. This is because the word is so often used as a generic intensifier with no additional meaning intended. Now I know to be more careful, but since similar words like “actually”, “really”, and “truly” are already used as generic intensifiers there isn’t always a good synonym for “literally” that _will_ be understood. Sure there is. Like I said above, you could employ “non-figuratively” if you like. Or you could employ a short phrase, which is really no cumbersome than a single word. “The astronaut’s career skyrocketed - and I don’t mean metaphorically!”. That sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/64 "2009-02-22T19:30:43Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > The problem is when you take a word that conveys a unique meaning and assign it a meaning that is already adequately described by other words. You simultaneously add redundancy and destroy a bit of expressive power. You add an unneeded usage while destroying one that is needed - perhaps the only single word that is adequate for its particular task. Don’t you dare try and pretend that this is outrage over the existence of synonyms; that’s a dishonest and specious claim and I’m fairly sure you know that. What expressive power has been lost? Has anyone had any difficulty conveying to me the very thing they intend for “alternate” to always mean? (And, in general, why should anyone care if something can be expressed in a single word as opposed to two or three? Like I said, short phrases are no more cumbersome than single words.) ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/65 "2009-02-22T20:27:08Z")
> [@SmartAleq](#): > > For those annoyed by the drifting definition of “effete” who are worried there might not be a good replacement, may I suggest “jejune?” Similar meaning, and it’s a severely underused term that’s unlikely to gain enough common currency to go drifting off anytime soon. Plus, it’s a great word, especially to pronounce. I agree that it’s a great word, but it’s more applicable to something or someone that is not sufficiently developed, mature, ripe, or experienced to suffice for some purpose. It is like effete, but for reasons that are opposite. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/66 "2009-02-22T22:49:38Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Again, your bible says you are wrong sir. Only because everybody’s forcing the word into this dual meaning. I’m just arguing it’s an unnecessary thing when an almost completely similar word already exists to cover that second meaning. If this carried on, we’d eventually have only twelve words, each with 350,000 meanings. He said, sarcastically. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/67 "2009-02-22T23:01:43Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > I agree that it’s a great word, but it’s more applicable to something or someone that is not sufficiently developed, mature, ripe, or experienced to suffice for some purpose. It is like effete, but for reasons that are opposite. It is, however, infinitely less of a cognitive leap to go from effete to jejune than from effete to effeminate. Which would either be a case of damning with faint praise or praising with faint damns, I can never get those straight… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/68 "2009-02-22T23:02:11Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > If this carried on, we’d eventually have only twelve words, each with 350,000 meanings. He said, sarcastically. If this language with only 12 words was perfectly comprehensible to other speakers of the language, that would be pretty damn awesome. If it wasn’t perfectly comprehensible, it wouldn’t exist, because the mainstream wouldn’t let it get that far. Check out the middle you’re excluding some time, it may be enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/69 "2009-02-22T23:34:56Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Sure there is. Like I said above, you could employ “non-figuratively” if you like. I could, if I wanted to say something that no one ever says. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard the “non-figuratively” spoken aloud, and I’ve rarely seen it in writing. Which is unsurprising, because it’s awkward to have to stick a negative prefix onto a word that means the opposite of what you really mean. The loss of “literally” in its literal sense isn’t an insurmountable barrier to communication, but there isn’t always an elegant way to replace it. This ranks pretty low on the scale of problems in the world today, and I’m not especially bothered by the use of “literally” as a generic intensifier. I just find it irritating that I can’t say what I want to say in a manner that is, literally, correct and expect to be understood. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/70 "2009-02-22T23:43:12Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Which is **unsurprising** , because it’s awkward to have to stick a negative prefix onto a word that means the opposite of what you really mean. You mean like that word in bold? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/71 "2009-02-22T23:56:08Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > You mean like that word in bold? Yes, exactly like that. That was a stylistic choice that I made partially to be ironic but mostly because “unsurprising” is weaker than “obvious” and in this context I felt it was more polite. I wouldn’t want to say “unsurprising” every single time I meant that something was “obvious” or “expected”, though. If that was what I _had_ to say in order to be understood then I’d just have to deal with it, but I’d still find it annoying. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/72 "2009-02-23T00:16:13Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > (And, in general, why should anyone care if something can be expressed in a single word as opposed to two or three? Like I said, short phrases are no more cumbersome than single words.) You’re saying that the 4-syllable word “literally” isn’t less cumbersome than the 5-word, 10-syllable whopper “-- and I don’t mean metaphorically”? This is a whoosh, right? ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/73 "2009-02-23T00:20:10Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > You’re saying that the 4-syllable word “literally” isn’t less cumbersome than the 5-word, 10-syllable whopper “-- and I don’t mean metaphorically”? This is a whoosh, right? I’d wager some Brits might argue “literally” has 3 syllables. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/74 "2009-02-23T00:24:39Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > I’d wager some Brits might argue “literally” has 3 syllables. 😉 If so, they’d probably count 5 in “metaphorically”, so the difference is still the same. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/75 "2009-02-23T00:26:01Z")
And I’ve never heard anyone pronounce _metaphorically_ with 6 syllables. The last two always get smooshed together. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/76 "2009-02-23T00:26:46Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > You’re saying that the 4-syllable word “literally” isn’t less cumbersome than the 5-word, 10-syllable whopper “-- and I don’t mean metaphorically”? This is a whoosh, right? No, I’m serious. When was the last time you felt like it was a slog to get through “and I don’t mean metaphorically”? How often are you actually aware of how many syllables your sentences take up? Look at the very sentence you just wrote. You could’ve gotten away with “4-syllable ‘literally’'s not simpler than 5-word, 10-syllable ‘and I don’t mean metaphorically’? Do you jest?”. But it didn’t matter that you didn’t. The extra syllables didn’t burden you in any noticeable way. Blind syllable-count minimization is not a reasonable rubric by which to judge the expressive ease of a language. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/77 "2009-02-23T00:32:11Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Blind syllable-count minimization is not a reasonable rubric by which to judge the expressive ease of a language. Indeed. By that metric, languages like German and Welsh are practically useless. ---
**Author:** ![HongKongFooey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c4cdca/32.png) [@HongKongFooey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HongKongFooey)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/78 "2009-02-23T00:49:54Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > No, I’m serious. When was the last time you felt like it was a slog to get through “and I don’t mean metaphorically”? It’s because no one ever says that that they don’t feel they had to slog their way through it. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/79 "2009-02-23T00:56:37Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > No, I’m serious. When was the last time you felt like it was a slog to get through “and I don’t mean metaphorically”? The last few posts, since they’re the only time I’d ever consider using that clunker. > [@](#): > > How often are you actually aware of how many syllables your sentences take up? Never, although I am aware of when I’m putting unnecessary time and effort in a sentence. I never stop myself and say “wow, that was way too verbose” because I’d avoid wasting the effort in the first place. > [@](#): > > Blind syllable-count minimization is not a reasonable rubric by which to judge the expressive ease of a language. I’m not performing a quantitative syllable inventory of the English language here. I’m comparing the relative merits of two words. I agree time to speak would be a better measure. Let’s time ourselves on saying “literally” versus “-- and I don’t mean metaphorically” (and be honest, OK?). Let’s measure the breath required to say it. Let’s think about the cognitive load of one affirmative word versus parsing a 4-word negation of “metaphorically”. I’m willing to look at any measure except a tedious repetition of your own obviously heartfelt opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781/80 "2009-02-23T00:58:14Z")
> [@HongKongFooey](#): > > It’s because no one ever says that that they don’t feel they had to slog their way through it. Fair enough. I should’ve said, “When was the last time you felt like it was a slog to get through any phrase of comparable length?”. For example, the sentence you just gave. You opened with 11-syllable “It’s because no one ever says that that they” when you could’ve used 6-syllable “Since it’s never said, folks”. Did it feel like a lot of tiresome effort to say it your way? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-the-pedants-go-too-far/486781.md?page=5)