Anguished English

Well, I don't know if it is the Lord or simply "the cosmic-coincidence" . . . but often when it seems that I should deal with an issue or research something, that "something" keeps coming around to bug me until I finally feel forced to do something about it. Well, that "something" came tonight.

How many times do we have to suffer with the mangling and bludgeoning of the English language by educated people?

My English grammar is far from perfect, but there are certain basic things that you expect from writers and certain basic things you expect even from non-writers who are educated in other fields.

For example, even though not everyone is a biblical scholar, you expect that people who have been Christians for 10 or 20 years will know the basic locations between the Old and New Testaments in their Bibles. In other words, what would you think of a person who claimed to be a Christian for the last 20 years who said to you, "Can you help me? I have been looking for the Gospel according to Matthew, and I have made my way through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, but this process is taking too long. Can you help me find Matthew?"

Or, how about this one: A man is told to look at the engine of a car, and so he opens the trunk.

In each case, you might think that there's something wrong with the person. You do not have to be a biblical scholar to know where Matthew is located in the Bible. And, you do not have to be a professional mechanic to know the difference between the trunk of a car and the hood of a car.

Likewise, there are some very basic grammatical issues that should be common knowledge, especially among those with a college education. Or, as a former professor of mine used to say, "Anyone who has read two books should know that."

Let me point out one of these basic grammatical issues, and perhaps this Coffee Talk can serve as a little teaching. I do hope that if this mistake is one that you make, you will take this Coffee Talk to heart. Educated people should know better, and you don't have to be an English scholar to know these things. This one is a basic, like the location of Matthew in the Bible, and that the engine of a car is under the hood.

Literal (and Literally)

1) Factual, real, actual.
2) Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
3) Not exaggeration, metaphor, embellishment, or symbolic.

A women once said in a counseling session: "My kids are literally driving me up the wall!" I asked her what kind of car they were driving, and how does a car not fall off the wall if the wall is vertical. Probably not the best comeback during a counseling session; but, it made her laugh, and then we had a little fun with some other goofy sayings.

One of my students once wrote in a term paper, "Christianity literally doesn't take a back seat to other world religions." I made a comment in the margin asking if Christianity would take a front seat to these other religions? And, if so, was it the front seat of a car or some other type of seat?

You see, metaphors and symbolisms are fine

There is nothing wrong with metaphors and symbolisms (well, there is something wrong with them in academic papers, but that's a Coffee Talk for another time). We use metaphors and symbolisms in our speech quite often. We understand metaphors and symbolisms; they brighten up our conversations. (Yes, that was symbolic. Note that I did not say that they literally brighten up our conversations.)

Metaphors

A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate something else, thus making an implicit comparison, as in "a sea of troubles."

So, "a sea of troubles" is fine. I can even say, "I was drowning in a sea of troubles." That's metaphoric language. But, if I say, "I was literally drowning in a sea of troubles" . . . well, that's just plain stupid. And, if I start talking or writing that way, you have my permission to literally drown me in a sea of red ink.

If a man says, "My wife is my sister," I'm going to think that he is speaking symbolically; you know, the "brotherhood of man" and all that. But, if he said, "My wife is literally my sister" . . . well, that's just plain scary.

I have heard preachers say, "He was saved literally by the skin of his teeth."

Folks, it doesn't take a dentist or a dermatologist to know that a tooth doesn't have skin. Enamel, yes; skin, no.

We can say, "He was saved by the skin of his teeth." That's okay. That's symbolic.

We can say that our kids are driving us up the wall or that we are drowning in a sea of troubles. That's okay. That's symbolic.

We can say, "That man is as big as a horse." That's okay. That's symbolic.

But, let us not mix factual, real, and actual with exaggeration, metaphor, or symbolism.

Let's not say, "That man is literally as big as a horse." (Unless, of course, he really is.)

I remember when I was a boy, my dad once spoke of a man who was one of the toughest hombrés in our town. Of this man my dad said, "That man can chew nails and spit out tacks." Now, even though I was just a boy, I knew that he did not mean that he could literally chew nails and spit out tacks. I thank God that I learned early on that the word literally is to be used only when the meaning is to be taken . . . well, literally.

Thank God for Rodeo Clowns!

Earlier tonight I was hacking away at a student's term paper and making it bleed (all symbolic language notice), and my pen ran out of red ink. So, I figured it was a good time to take a break, go down stairs, and get a soda. As I was walking through our kitchen, I heard the narrator on the TV in the living room say, "They literally took the bull by the horns." I cringed inside (as one might when hearing fingernails scratching across a chalkboard), and I thought to myself, "There had better be an actual, factual, real bull!" I looked into the living room at the TV, and there on the screen were two rodeo clowns holding on to a real bull's horns! It's a good thing too because my wife is getting really tired of my red-ink, correction marks on the TV screen.

The title, "Anguished English" comes from the book of the same name by Richard Lederer . . . a hilarious book that is "An Anthology of Accidental Assaults Upon Our Language" – see (and if you want to laugh and laugh, buy) it at: Anguished English

For more CTs on grammar and writing, click here: An Argument for Grammar

=========

Free Class:
For those of you who might be interested: I have produced a lecture series on audio with notes. I cover the basics of good writing, grammar, punctuation, and more. I've had people with Master's degrees and PhDs go through these lectures, and some of them told me that they learned more on this subject from my lectures and notes than they had from all of their previous education combined. You can listen to the lectures for free and downlaod the lecture notes as PDFa files (for free) at CES Writing Protocols Lectures.

Send comments about this, or any, Coffee Talk to Rick Walston at:
CES @ ColumbiaSeminary.edu

(Please note that you will need to take the spaces out before and after the @ sign . . . this is placed this way to avoid spam emails.)

Coffee Talk Table Of Contents

Coffee Talk Articles are Provided by
Columbia Evangelical Seminary (CES)
To learn more about CES, click on Logo