Why do Americans exaggerate?
SabirzyanB
Being born in Russia and having spent part of my life in the US, I can't help
comparing how Russians and Americans express themselves. For example, in
contrast to Russians (and perhaps to most other nations in the world) Americans
often exaggerate when they speak.
Why is it necessary to say "I HATE this song" when what we really mean is "I
don't like this song"? Why is it necessary to say "I LOVE Chinese food" when
what we mean is "I like Chinese food"?
Why do we say "he is my FRIEND" when we mean "he is someone I met a few times"?
Why do we say "this is the WORST movie that I've ever seen in my life" when we
obviously mean "this is one of the bad movies that I saw recently", etc.?
And what are we supposed to do when we REALLY need to use a superlative? Since
we use superlatives all the time, how can we express a particularly strong
feeling or attitude? I would apprecialte your responses.
Jay Random
SabirzyanB wrote:
>
> Being born in Russia and having spent part of my life in the US, I can't help
> comparing how Russians and Americans express themselves. For example, in
> contrast to Russians (and perhaps to most other nations in the world) Americans
> often exaggerate when they speak.
>
> Why is it necessary to say "I HATE this song" when what we really mean is "I
> don't like this song"? Why is it necessary to say "I LOVE Chinese food" when
> what we mean is "I like Chinese food"?
(etc., etc.)
Good question; but keep in mind, this behaviour isn't confined to
Americans by any means. I suspect it arises in any culture where the
majority of the people sit in front of a television set for several
hours a day to be bombarded by ridiculous hyperbole in the form of
advertising. Mere statement of fact becomes insipid by comparison.
--J. Random New-And-Improved Incredible Gosh-Wow Poster!
Patronius
>Good question; but keep in mind, this behaviour isn't confined to
>Americans by any means. I suspect it arises in any culture where the
>majority of the people sit in front of a television set for several
>hours a day to be bombarded by ridiculous hyperbole in the form of
>advertising. Mere statement of fact becomes insipid by comparison.
Right on. And yet . . . not just TV advertising either. I suspect it arises
in any culture where people are bombarded by ridiculous hyperbole via any
medium. Latin American culture has always struck me as ridiculously hyperbolic
in many ways; and I remember one of my Spanish teachers telling us never to
just use "gracias" (thank you) or even "muchas gracias" (thanks a lot), because
those terms sound so dull as to be almost patronizing. Instead we should use
"muchisimas gracias" (thanks a whole bunch!).
I suppose Russians, too, might have fallen prey to "ridiculous hyperbole" if
the last Czar had never been overthrown. Looking back to Ivan the Terrible and
those wild Russian dances and all, it seems likely. But I suppose a few
generations of Communist rule tended to make most Russians pretty tight-lipped.
Besides, the Russian language is so complex, it'd be a shame to waste all those
many shades of meaning that are possible in almost any sentence.
P&DSchultz
Speaking as an American, I think your claim is a million, billion,
jillion percent wrong.
SabirzyanB wrote:
> ... Americans
> often exaggerate when they speak.
>
> Why is it necessary to say "I HATE this song" when what we really mean is "I
> don't like this song"? Why is it necessary to say "I LOVE Chinese food" when
> what we mean is "I like Chinese food"? ...
Bill McCray
On 21 Feb 1998 04:23:32 GMT, sabir...@aol.com (SabirzyanB) wrote:
>Being born in Russia and having spent part of my life in the US, I
>can't help comparing how Russians and Americans express themselves.
>For example, in contrast to Russians (and perhaps to most other
>nations in the world) Americans often exaggerate when they speak.
>
>And what are we supposed to do when we REALLY need to use a
>superlative? Since we use superlatives all the time, how can we
>express a particularly strong feeling or attitude? I would
>apprecialte your responses.
>
I was born and raised in the U.S. and stumped by it, too. My wife,
for example, will say "I just saw the cutest dress." If I've told
here once, I've told her a million times, "Don't exaggerate."
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
wxill
Byrnesp wrote:
>
> >>And what are we supposed to do when we REALLY need to use a<BR>
> > >superlative?
>
> We try to use a "really very unique" superlative.
> (Like, I mean basically, the most totally awesomest!) Pat
I haven't seen the previous messages in this thread, so please forgive
me if I'm jumping in at the wrong time and taking things out of context.
However, you've found one of my pet peeves -- the overuse, misuse amd
near demise of unique, the ultimate superlative which is supposed to
mean one of a kind. Therefore, if something is unique (one of a kind) it
is what it is and nothing else is exactly like it. It's not "very" one
of a kind because that implies degrees of being unique. I'd reluctantly
concede the modifier "really" if it meant the item was actually and
genuinely one of a kind. But I wince when people, especially in
advertising take unique and try to dilute it. Anne
Byrnesp
P&DSchultz
wxill wrote:
> I haven't seen the previous messages in this thread, so please forgive
> me if I'm jumping in at the wrong time and taking things out of context.
> However, you've found one of my pet peeves -- the overuse, misuse amd
> near demise of unique, the ultimate superlative which is supposed to
> mean one of a kind. Therefore, if something is unique (one of a kind) it
> is what it is and nothing else is exactly like it. It's not "very" one
> of a kind because that implies degrees of being unique. I'd reluctantly
> concede the modifier "really" if it meant the item was actually and
> genuinely one of a kind. But I wince when people, especially in
> advertising take unique and try to dilute it.
Since everything on earth is unique, the word would be pretty
worthless if restricted to an absolute sense. Why say a painting is
unique? EVERY painting is unique. What we mean is that the painting
is worthy of inclusion in a class by itself according to certain
implicit or explicit criteria. And if the criteria are *especially*
narrow, then the painting is *very* unique. That is no more
"watered down" than saying that something is very beautiful.
//P. Schultz
JUST AN H
Sorry, but placing a modifier in front of the word "unique" waters down the
meaning of the word. To say something is "very unique" is like saying that
someone is "very dead."
As for use of hyperbole on a day to day basis, well, I think that the weather
has a lot to do with it. The farther one is from the North and South Poles,
the warmer and more effusive are the people one finds. Vis-a-vis, the farther
one travels from the Equator, the more dour and tight-lipped the people.
I think the weather also has an effect on language itself. Languages of
northern regions tend to contain a lot more consonants than those of warmer
climes. Compare Swedish & Polish with French & Spanish, for example.
Consonants can be sounded out with the teeth clenched firmly together.
Clenching the teeth is a natural human instinct in extreme cold, and I can't
help but think that this has had an effect on the development of languages
spoken in colder regions.
Back to hyperbole. In any society, hyperbole (like "I just saw the cutest
dress!) seems more prevalent in lower and less educated classes. (Further
down, hyperbole consists of using swear words as modifiers. "Shit, I almost
talked my way outta that fuckin' speedin' charge ... until that fuckin' cop
asked to see my fuckin' license! Now I gotta go to fuckin' court!")
How do people like this express themselves when they really like something, or
are angry? Good question.
Paul Juhl
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 01:01:14 -0500, P&DSchultz <schu...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Since everything on earth is unique, the word would be pretty
>worthless if restricted to an absolute sense. Why say a painting is
>unique? EVERY painting is unique. What we mean is that the painting
>is worthy of inclusion in a class by itself according to certain
>implicit or explicit criteria. And if the criteria are *especially*
>narrow, then the painting is *very* unique. That is no more
>"watered down" than saying that something is very beautiful.
Newspaper editors often tell reporters: "If you mean 'unusual,' use
that word ... don't say 'unique'." And the term "very unique" makes
me shudder.
I was a bit surprised to discover that M-W reflects the popular use of
the word by including "unusual" as a definition. To wit:
1 : being the only one : SOLE <his unique concern was his own comfort>
... [clip examples]
2 a : being without a like or equal : UNEQUALED <could stare at the
flames, each one new, violent, unique -- Robert Coover> b :
distinctively characteristic : PECULIAR 1 <this is not a condition
unique to California -- Ronald Reagan>
3 : UNUSUAL <a very unique ball-point pen> ... [clip example
quotation]
But I was heartened when I read M-W's note on usage. To wit more:
"Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as
by somewhat or very) of unique; the statement that a thing is either
unique or it is not has often been repeated by them. Objections are
based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute
sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in
a dictionary. Unique dates back to the 17th century but was little
used until the end of the 18th when, according to the Oxford English
Dictionary, it was reacquired from French. H. J. Todd entered it as a
foreign word in his edition (1818) of Johnson's Dictionary,
characterizing it as "affected and useless." Around the middle of the
19th century it ceased to be considered foreign and came into
considerable popular use. With popular use came a broadening of
application beyond the original two meanings (here numbered 1 and 2a).
In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and
standard but are confined to the extended senses 2b and 3. When sense
1 or sense 2a is intended, unique is used without qualifying
modifiers."
When "unique" is used merely as a substitute for the word "unusual,"
it can still be characterized as "affected," as it was in Johnson's
Dictionary of 1818. Since the word no longer means what it used to
mean, I suppose we'll have to use terms such as "one of a kind" and
"ain't nuttin' like it" to describe senses 1. and 2a in the above.
--
Cheers, Paul Juhl
Montreal
P&DSchultz
JUST AN H wrote:
>
> Sorry, but placing a modifier in front of the word "unique" waters down the
> meaning of the word. To say something is "very unique" is like saying that
> someone is "very dead."
If there is nothing wrong with saying "very unusual," then there is
nothing wrong with saying "very unique," because "unusual" is one of
the definitions of "unique." Look it up. If somebody waters down the
soup, then stick some more goodies in it yourself. The soup belongs
to everybody.
As for "dead," it has been used metaphorically in every language for,
like, thousands of years. There are dead issues, and there are,
whether you like it or not, VERY dead issues. Language is
communication and expression of ideas. It ain't Boolean algebra.
//P. Schultz
Ulf Nystrom
Quite interesting. Being Swedish I am learning a lot from this NG. E.g.
the possibility of something/someone being "very dead". How about
"slightly dead"? My granddad is extremely dead.
(This reminds me of Basil Fawlty's reply "Only slightly" when asked if
he has locked the door*.)
From the post above I also learn a few things my incompetent English
teacher failed to teach me: the use of "like" and "ain't".
Ulf Nystrom
* British TV comedy series Fawlty Towers by John Cleese.
--------------------------------------------
Ulf Nystrom
Malmoe, Sweden
ulf.n...@mbox2.swipnet.se
http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-10691/boddan.htm
--------------------------------------------
P&DSchultz
Ulf Nystrom wrote:
...
> Quite interesting. Being Swedish I am learning a lot from this NG. E.g.
> the possibility of something/someone being "very dead". How about
> "slightly dead"? My granddad is extremely dead.
Actually, I think the issue under discussion is beginning to be
slightly dead.
>...
> From the post above I also learn a few things my incompetent English
> teacher failed to teach me: the use of "like" and "ain't".
>
Not incompetent, surely. It's probably just that your teacher thought
that common colloquial English didn't suit your needs. If you would
like to learn more of it, tell your teacher so. Good luck.
//P. Schultz
P&DSchultz
Patronius wrote:
> ...P. Schultz wrote...
> >> If there is nothing wrong with saying "very unusual," then there is
> >> nothing wrong with saying "very unique," because "unusual" is one of
> >> the definitions of "unique." Look it up.
>
> descriptive, not prescriptive? How would that solve anything?
I meant the kind of dictionary (either new- or old-fangled) that tells
what a word means as the speakers of the language use it. And what it
would solve is the problem.
> >>Language is
> >> communication and expression of ideas. It ain't Boolean >algebra.
>
> Language fails as a means of communication and expression of ideas to the
> degree that it lacks clarity. If we forget that "unique" basically means "one
> of a kind," to the point that the figurative meaning replaces the literal
> meaning, we must then search for another term to use when we want to literally
> say "one of a kind." ...
Sure we do. That comes with the territory. Ambiguity is a feature, not
a bug (to quote John Lawler). Since all languages, even wonderful
English, are and always have been in a state of flux, with new words
coming in and old ones going out, and meanings shifting this way and
that, there are always going to be potential ambiguities. To rale
against innovations such as "very unique" is to howl in the wind.
Language doesn't work like that; if you want your clarity guaranteed,
stick with Boolean algebra. Mimi Kahn, on alt.usage.english, is
wondering what "vegetarian drinks," which she spotted on a restaurant
sign, might mean. I am too. Does it mean drinks with no meat in them?
Or drinks that vegetarians like to drink (sort of like "vegetarian
clothing" or "vegetarian movies")? We might be witnessing the birth of
a new definition before it even gets into one of those nasty, icky,
new-fangled dictionaries.
//P. Schultz
Patronius
>> > Sorry, but placing a modifier in front of the word "unique" waters down
>the
>> > meaning of the word.
I disagree. If "unique" just means "one of a kind," then it's not possible to
water down its meaning. No amount of "watering down" could possibly change the
literal meaning.
What happens when one says "very unique" is that the modifier casts doubt upon
the literal meaning of "unique." Literally, it can't be modified . . . yet it
is being modified. . . . And to get out of that endless loop of illogic, you
have to let go of something--and the only thing to let go of is the literal
meaning of "unique." You end up thinking, "OK, this person is using 'unique'
figuratively, not literally--and in this figurative sense, it can be modified."
The literal meaning of "unique" is not watered down; it is abandoned in favor
of a figurative meaning.
> To say something is "very unique" is like saying
>that
>> > someone is "very dead."
True. But the figurative meaning of "dead" is a little harder to imagine.
Therefore, it's harder, in this case, to abandon the literal meaning. One is
more likely to believe the speaker made a mistake in saying "very dead," or
that the speaker was trying to make a joke.
>> If there is nothing wrong with saying "very unusual," then there is
>> nothing wrong with saying "very unique," because "unusual" is one of
>> the definitions of "unique." Look it up.
Look it up where? In one of these newfangled dictionaries which claims to be
descriptive, not prescriptive? How would that solve anything?
>>If somebody waters down the
>> soup, then stick some more goodies in it yourself.
Isn't this precisely what the original post was trying to do?
>> As for "dead," it has been used metaphorically in every language for,
>> like, thousands of years. There are dead issues, and there are,
>> whether you like it or not, VERY dead issues.
Indeed. This is one instance in which a figurative meaning of "dead" can be
pretty easily imagined. But this is not a good response to the original post.
The original post said: "To say something is "very unique" is like saying that
someone is 'very dead.'" Someone, not some issue.
>>Language is
>> communication and expression of ideas. It ain't Boolean >algebra.
Language fails as a means of communication and expression of ideas to the
degree that it lacks clarity. If we forget that "unique" basically means "one
of a kind," to the point that the figurative meaning replaces the literal
meaning, we must then search for another term to use when we want to literally
say "one of a kind." It's fine to play with creative expressions and
figurative meanings, but it's also necessary to be able to express ideas
sharply and clearly. To master the use of language, one has to do both--and
also make it clear whether he is speaking literally or figuratively in any
given instance.
Vincit omnia veritas
PC, Minneapolis
Patronius@AOL
David Chamberlain
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:03:32 -0600, wxill <wx...@caller.infi.net>
wrote:
>I haven't seen the previous messages in this thread, so please forgive
>me if I'm jumping in at the wrong time and taking things out of context.
>However, you've found one of my pet peeves -- the overuse, misuse amd
>near demise of unique, the ultimate superlative which is supposed to
>mean one of a kind. Therefore, if something is unique (one of a kind) it
>is what it is and nothing else is exactly like it. It's not "very" one
>of a kind because that implies degrees of being unique. I'd reluctantly
>concede the modifier "really" if it meant the item was actually and
>genuinely one of a kind. But I wince when people, especially in
>advertising take unique and try to dilute it. Anne
One of the notorious misuses of the word 'unique' come from a British
formula 1 racing commentator (Murray Walker) who during a race said
(something like) "The car is unique, just like the identical one
behind it"
My personal dislike is politicians who say "The people say that we
should ......." when most of the time I don't say that, and I am one
of the people.
David
Patronius
David wrote:
>My personal dislike is politicians who say "The people say that we
>should ......." when most of the time I don't say that, and I am one
>of the people.
Ah, but this is political jargon. You can't take it literally. What a
politician means when he says that is, "As one who wields political power, I
say that we should. . . ." Political talk is always an expression of power.
"The people" is a figurative expression for "the political power I wield"--at
least in any society where political power supposedly comes from the people.
This figure of speech makes political power palatable to the masses.
JUST AN H
Perhaps when a politican says, "The people say that we should..." it simply
means that he or she's read all four letters that have poured in from
constituents (three pro and one anti). -grin-
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>>>In any society, hyperbole (like "I just saw the cutest dress!) seems
>>>more prevalent in lower and less educated classes.
>
>
>Well, I guess you don't live in Beverly Hills or shop in Neiman Marcus:...
>
>"I just saw the cutest little Donna Karan..." "That Oscar de la Renta is
>the most beautiful..." "That facelift makes her look 20 years..."
>
The English seem to be damned: two a penny is almost twice as cheap as
a dime a dozen.