Comments on: literally go for broke

By: deirdre

deirdre — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:33:10 +0000

Oh Kenneth, great point! If we actually become broke, we will out ahead!

By: deirdre

deirdre — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:28:59 +0000

Since “Go for broke” is an idiom, “go for broke, literally,” means “understand the phrase in its literal sense.”

Go (”attempt” or “head for”) for broke (”peniless”).

So, I belive the term “literally” is being used correctly here.

By: Kristin

Kristin — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:39:55 +0000

I’m agreeing with Robin. It doesn’t have a literal meaning, so the journalist used it incorrectly.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:11:03 +0000

@Calculus Dave

If the phrase “go for broke” was used to indicate the original meanings of “break”, it should result in the word “broken” instead. Since it is not “go for broken”, I think “broke” must be understood in the colloquial sense. “I am broke” does not mean the same thing as “I am broken”.

@Robin

I’m inclined to agree with you, but since the author used the word “literally”, the reader who wants to continue reading has no choice but to try to interpret it. In any case, the word literally could be replaced with a phrase that hasn’t been white-washed through misuse. Such as “and that’s exactly what will happen if he gets his way” or something more poetic.

By: Kenneth LeCroy

Kenneth LeCroy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:29:09 +0000

Remember that our national debt is over a trillion dollars. There is not an endpoint in negative numbers. I think this usage would be correct only if the candidate were “threatening to tax us till we bleed and quit spending as a country until our national debt is zero - he is literally going for broke.”

Broke meaning having nothing. We currently have a whole lot less than nothing.

By: Robin

Robin — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 11:51:15 +0000

I think it’s wrong. “Going for broke” is an idiom that means, roughly, “risk a lot”, but that meaning is unrelated to the literal meanings of any of the words in it. It doesn’t have a literal meaning, so you can’t do it literally.

By: jocelyn

jocelyn — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:30:49 +0000

i think it’s right on. i think the gambling usage is figurative, so the writer makes the distinction. is it literal or figurative? rudy wants us to go for broke (using the definition of broke in this case to mean have no money — isn’t deconstructionism great?) literally, not figuratively.

the writer is saying that rudy’s idea will definitely leave us with no money, not that it’s a gamble that might end up paying off big.

By: Calculus Dave

Calculus Dave — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:18:14 +0000

Does “literally” apply for colloquial meanings of words? That is, “broke” (literally) means to mean that something is broken, not just without funds. That is to say, can “literally” be applied to idioms and not be taken in the way a foreigner might understand them?

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:54:16 +0000

Peter, you’re on he right track, I think, but coming to the wrong conclusion. I think the meaning of the term as it is normally used in gambling becomes irrelevant when one inserts “literally” into the sentence. When one does so, the reader is informed that the author is not using the phrase as a gambler would (taking a risk, with the possibility of losing everything or winning big) but the plain meaning of the words (doing something that will certainly lead to losing all one’s money). The author is contending that there is no chance Guiliani’s tax cuts will pay for themselves and that that the government will be “broke” if they are enacted. The author may be guilty of hyperbole (and his knowledge of economics may be questionable, but that’s for another blog), but he is not guilty of misuse of the word, IMO.

By: Peter Hosey

Peter Hosey — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:40:45 +0000

I say that if we are *literally* going for broke, then we are simply spending money carelessly, with the aim of going broke.

The quoted text’s usage was figurative: Rudy wants us to [bet everything on his tax cut]. Thus, “literally” is incorrect here.