Horizon

I agree that 'Godzilla from hell' could be hyphenated, but that by itself wouldn't be enough to get rid of the comma since without the comma you've got 'another Godzilla-from-hell kind of correction' which suggests that there are (at least) two Godzilla-from-hell kinds.

cheers,

Henry

Hmm. Good point.

There are probably a good number of different Godzilla-from-hell kinds of corrections in fact. What about the kind involving a big splashy front-page apology, as I think happened with the New York Times in the Jayson Blair case?

I'm just confused as to what a Godzilla-from-hell kind of correction would be.

Personally, I think things like this should just be run together. A Godzillafromhell correction. Or maybe this would be a legitimate use for camel case?

On a somewhat related note:

Surely the only way to "literally put myself into a character's shoes" is to obtain the character's shoes and put them on. Literally.

Now that's a Godzillafromhellandmothraallrolledintoone mistake.

On a more serious note, though, I think it's time we admit that the definition of "literally" is changing and it ain't coming back. One way you can tell this is that no one ever uses the word "figuratively" unless they are correcting someone who just used "literally" in its newer sense.

What is the newer meaning of 'literally' then?

"Really", "truly", "seriously", something like that.

Not at all unrelated to its older meaning, if you think about it. In fact, "really" must have originally had virtually the same meaning as "literally" did, but you don't find people with arched eyebrow doling out that hoary retort: "Really? Is he really skinny as a board? Don't you mean that he's metaphorically skinny as a board?"

...or maybe that should be skinny-as-a-board?

You're probably right that that's the trend; but it's a trend I deplore. It is useful to have a word that means "not metaphorically" given the amount of metaphor out there, and not always very well thought-out metaphor.

If the invisible hand of language percieves a sufficient demand for a handy word meaning "not-metaphorically", then the hand will provide.

Anyone want to settle whether "irregardless" is a word? J. says it's not a word because it isn't in the dictionary. I say it may not be in the dictionary but most people understand it as a less formal substitute for "notwithstanding."

It is in the dictionary, so the quarrel is moot.

Chiefly N. Amer. In non-standard or humorous use: regardless.

1912 in WENTWORTH Amer. Dial. Dict. 1923 Lit. Digest 17 Feb. 76 Is there such a word as irregardless in the English language? 1934 in WEBSTER (labelled Erron. or Humorous, U.S.). 1938 I. KUHN Assigned to Adventure xxx. 310, I made a grand entrance and suffered immediate and complete obliteration, except on the pay-roll, which functioned automatically to present me with a three-figure cheque every week, ‘irregardless’, as Hollywood says. 1939 C. MORLEY Kitty Foyle xxvii. 267 But she can take things in her stride, irregardless what's happened. 1955 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. XXIV. 19, I don't think like other people do and irregardless of how much or how little dope would cost me [etc.]. 1970 Current Trends in Linguistics X. 590 She tells the pastor that he should please quit using the word ‘irregardless’ in his sermons as there is no such word. 1971 M. MCSHANE Man who left Well Enough iv. 96 The sun poured down on Purity irregardless of the fact that it received no welcome.

the quarrel is moot

No, the quarrel is mute.

Yeah, that's another one you see in the style guides. Moot = arguable, they say.

I really enjoyed Tolkien's linguistic resurrection of "moot" in "Entmoot". Good stuff.

Moot (adj): N. Amer. (orig. Law). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic. Now the usual sense in North America.

It's okay, Alan, you can use it however you want as far as I'm concerned. Notice it says "now the usual sense in North America"? That's why it's still definition number one in even notoriously liberal dictionaries, e.g.:

"1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED"

Nice to see you posting again, anyway.

If the invisible hand of language percieves a sufficient, etc., who are we to argue?