Comments on: literally gobsmacked

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:32:02 +0000

Of course, “literally” is all too often misused, as if it were for emphasis, i.e., “a literal flood of invitations came my way.” Similar to modifiers applied to “unique,” as in “very unique” or the egregious “most unique,” reflects a poor command of the mother tongue.

By: Side

Side — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:38:02 +0000

Using “literally godsmacked” removes the figurative meaning of “godsmacked” but rather means he was actually smacked-by-the-hand-of-god. Like using the term “on fire” which has figurative meaning of being “on a roll”, but when you say, I was “literally on fire”…you get the picture.

By: bob

bob — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:07:27 +0000

Christie brings up an interesting issue- if gobsmacked does indeed simply mean astounded, then what would he have been if he wasn’t “literally gobsmacked”? Metaphorically astounded?

By: Christie F.

Christie F. — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:42:04 +0000

Is this really incorrect usage? The definition of gobsmacked is ‘astounded’ or ‘flabbergasted.’ The etymology suggests the idea of being smacked in the mouth, but the actual denotation of the word simply means to be very very surprised. As to whether or not Andrew Lloyd Webber was really that surprised at the extravagent opera house, I cannot say for certain, but I don’t think it is too far-fetched to suppose him so.

I will say, though, that the idea of a chorus girl smacking him in the mouth is hilarious.