CW and I were in a book store today, and I saw an interesting point about the word "literally." Of course it means in the 'strictest sense,' and yet often it is used to mean the opposite. Dictionary.com points this out in its usage note, but doesn't go on to say if that use is wrong. Their example was this: "In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example “The 300,000 Unionists... will be literally thrown to the wolves.” Is it wrong? According to Dictionary.com, the definition hasn't changed; it's just that there is a natural tendency to use the word as a "general intensive," whatever that means.
Yes, in my opinion it is wrong, and I often wince when I hear similar instances nowadays. The Unionists never were thrown to the wolves and no-one expected that they would be. It would be a cruel and unusual punishment, not to speak of the fact that wolves had been extinct in the UK for two centuries.
The use of "literally" with a metaphor can never be right.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Normally I say a word means whatever people use it to mean. This is of course fuzzy: does 'coruscating' now (also) mean 'excoriating' or is this still enough of a minority usage to make it a malapropism?
But some new meanings are so directly contrary to and destructive of the old meaning that I have to protest: what do you say when you want to say literally 'literally'? I don't suppose there's any danger with being thrown to the wolves, but I'd have thought there'd be enough instances where it's really ambiguous which sense is intended, that you shouldn't use a word that can be taken in two conflicting senses. And if someone intensified it and said they were quite literally thrown to the wolves, I'd still be in doubt about what to think.
I suppose it's just following the way of 'really', which usually has no particular meaning.
Too bad about your wolves, arnie! They're making a comeback here! Nevertheless, I agree that the use of "literally" is confusingly illogical in this case. Had they said, "figuratively," it would have made sense.
I think "figuratively" would have been a better choice, but had it been me writing it I'd have said "virtually".
Yes, Asa, I love reading information about the reintroduction of wolves into their natural habitats and how they're doing so well. We have coyotes coming back in Ohio. I've not seen them (or even heard them) but my hubby, who works for the Dept. of Natural Resources talks about them.
******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama
I consider it wrong, too, now that I've thought about it. That's what I like about this board, though; it encourages me to think about usages that normally I wouldn't.
For example: Aput, your word "corpuscating" is new to me. The dictionary defined it as "sparkling and glittering." How in the world does "excoriating" evolve from such a lovely definition as "sparkle?"
I think the use of 'coruscating' is a simple confusion between words that sound similar and are both unfamiliar. They're both used occasionally in literate writing, but if you only see them once or twice you only get a hint of their meaning. I'd guess people have taken 'coruscating' to mean flashing, brilliant, fiery; and then taken 'excoriate' to mean sear, burn away; and thought more of a connexion than there etymologically was.
I was reminded of this by someone pointing out the error in an article on Susan Sontag: so someone who can write a review of her in the national press has internalized the confusion.
