A first presidential alert on Literally Watch this morning! President Obama, in France, discussing the diamond business in Botswana: "they have literally seen the diamond market collapse." I certainly hope there were no fatalities!
President Bush was renowned for his grammatical creations, but I don't recall him getting into a "literally" trap.
["Literally Watch" is a public service of this blog, defending the original, and we maintain correct, usage of the word.]
Why, I'll bet you probably literally read James J. Kilpatrick's column, "The Writer's Art," don't you? (I mean, in the literal sense.) That would be past tense, of course, since I understand he's now creased, er, ceased writing his syndicated column because of his health problems.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I might take exception to this example of what you believe to be the improper use of the word "literal."
Collapse refers to something which has been destroyed, frequently implying a sense of destruction from within - a cave-in, if you prefer. However, it does not preclude the sense of destruction from external sources.
As the object, "collapse" would not be limited to something physical. Why, even a market (as a description of a total thing) is often not existent! The marketplace, however, is a physical place. The market is the desire for trading - most often defined as buying & selling. "Collapse" can receive the subject "the diamond market," but it cannot support it! (Ha! Would it collapse?)
Remember: modifiers "introduce ideas into sentences without bearing clear grammatical relationships to them."
"Collapse" modifies the subject, and as a modifier may imply or suggest an action.
Are you implying that "seen" is the subject, vis-à-vis "have literally seen"?
However, I'd be curious to know how you might phrase the hoped-for idea expressed by the president!
I'll admit it is NOT my best example. (-: I may have been too anxious to score a Presidential level mark for my list.
ReplyDeleteI'll defer on this one, with a Thank You to Kevin!