literally any sign of Christmas
November 8th, 2005 by Amber
From the inside jacket of The War on Christmas, a book that seeks to expose the vast liberal conspiracy against the holiday observed on December 25th:
Literally any sign of Christmas in public can now lead to complaints, litigation, angry protests, threats, and bruised feelings.
How should this be categorized? Correct, Incorrect, or Unnecessary? Make your argument in the comments.
November 8th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
In this case, the usage is not incorrect, but it is unnecessary. If you remove the word “literally,” the sentence retains its meaning, and you avoid sounding as if you usually lie about these types of things but have decided to tell the truth in this instance.
November 8th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
The proper category would be “dishonest,” but since that’s not available, I’ll go with “incorrect.”
If Christian “The Christian” Christiansen, a Christian, is sauntering down a public street in a public place in full view of the public wearing a glow-in-the-dark Jesus-Is-the-Reason-for-the-Season jumpsuit, no one will litigate. I promise you.
The writer is counting on the fallacy of equivocation. If the mayor can’t distribute holy communion in city council meetings then “public” sponsorship of religion is out and therefore no one can say “Merry Christmas” to grandma over a “public” pay phone anymore.
November 8th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
The word “literally” should rarely be used. It’s only necessary when the speaker may think that the listener will perceive that a pun is being made, when the speaker does not intend one.
The rampant misuse of the word is causing its meaning to change; most people use it in lieu of “really”, “very” or even its opposite meaning, “virtually”.
But words are defined by their usage, not grammar books (or grammar blogs!).
November 8th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
I think correct but alarmist and over-the-top. In the mind of the author, and in the mind of the people who enjoyed his book, the literally is important and there to ensure that people know that they don’t mean just one particular kind, or only gross, or just religious, or what have you, but literally any.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
@Netxis: I think you read his intent correctly, but he has made his statement so vague (in a politically skillful way) that it doesn’t really say anything.
He says “it can” instead of “it will”
He says “it can lead to” so his statement could be true even if nobody complains (it could be leading to a complaint).
Then the resulting litany of possible reactions (complaints, litigation, angry protests, threats, and bruised feelings) means that any reaction at all would prove his point.
Finally, adding “literally” to the front gives it that added sense of authority.
All in all, a brilliant piece of FoxNews-ism.
November 8th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
@Kearns: I think you nailed it, well put. I’ll file it under “correct”.
November 9th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
the resulting litany of possible reactions (complaints, litigation, angry protests, threats, and bruised feelings) means that any reaction at all would prove his point
Well, not really since he uses the word “and” rather than “or.”
For the statement to be true, “literally any sign of Christmas in public” would have to have the potential to lead not to any of those reactions but (potentially) to all of those reactions.
I have no inclination to read Gibson’s treatise and find out for myself, but I would be surprised to learn that it cites a single example of litigation over a purely private — i.e., neither governmental nor commercial — expression of holiday cheer made “in public.” Keep in mind, he is purporting to describe, in literally literal terms, an actual social phenomenon exisitng “now,” not some future apocalyptic dénouement. Such a legal right of action simply does not, and constitutionally cannot, exist.
If he had said “or,” then it would be arguably “correct.” Of course, it would only be correct in the same way that, “literally anything can lead to complaints,” would be theoretically correct, albeit nothing to write home about.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:56 am
I’m surprised you’re categorizing this as correct. It seems unnecessary.
The writer has picked the meaning of literally from hearing it in usage to be some sort of emphasis. “Just about any…” or “Nearly any…” or “Virtually all…” Would fit better. As Jason says, just remove it and the sentence retains its meaning.
Does Literally here apply to the word any or to the word sign? Maybe it’s a sign post. What would a literal sign be compared with a metaphorical sign?
November 10th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Nextis, isn’t it possible that a public sign of Christmas could lead to all of those reactions? That’s all the author is saying (which isn’t much, really). He’s saying that it is possible for a person wearing Christmas tree earrings to evoke those reactions. And so, for that reason, he’s not incorrect when using the term “literally.”
November 10th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Jason, Christmas tree earrings are a good example of a sign of Christmas that could not conceivably lead to any sort of litigation, which is the only part of the statement I’ve cited as undermining its literal truth. The other reactions, I would not dispute are possible, though obviously paranoid in the extreme when considering the X-mas-tree earrings.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
I don’t see how litigation could be absolutely ruled out in any situation. Isn’t it possible that some crackpot lawyer would be willing to help me sue the lady with Christmas tree earrings? Even if the case doesn’t get very far, hasn’t it become litigation the moment the earring-wearer is served?
November 10th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
>>”I don’t see how litigation could be absolutely ruled out in any situation.”
In an exaggerated, purely theoretical way not actually connected to anything ever seen in reality? Sure.
But is that what we mean by “literally” true? Sounds more like garden-variety hyperbole to me, which is generally considered to be figurative language by definition.
I suppose the earrings literally could lead to nuclear armageddon too, given the right finger on the button. I mean, there’s no accounting for crackpots.
I do take your point, but I guess I’d just draw the line a little more strictly.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:56 am
It’s absolutely incorrect. As a statement of opinion or belief, it should say “almost” or “nearly.” It is however possible that the person is paranoid, and believes that every display of Christmas will lead to a protest. Usually it’s fundies who are projecting their own paranoia on others. If a store sign says “Happy Holidays,” that’s where the protests and bruised feelings come in. The phrase “Merry Christmas” is used like a weapon by these folks. “I will wish you a Merry Christmas, and you’ll like it, damnit, because I’m proud, and you can’t take away my own personal holiday, you evil secularist.”
December 8th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
This is pretty funny:
The Colbert Report: The War on Christmas