For realz!

Have you ever wondered what the Z in for realz is actually doing there? I have. The dictionary form of the phrase is for real, without a final Z.

There is a (formally) similar expression, for keeps, in which the S is historically a plural marker. Apparently, the word keeps is short for keepies, and originates from some sort of game in which players collected marbles. The ones one won, one “kept”, and these became known as keepies. Possibly the phrase for keeps has contributed to the formation of for realz by way of analogy. Although admittedly, it sounds a bit far-fetched.

The Z in for realz seems clearly to be a plural marker (i.e. plural S), but why has it been added at all? There doesn’t seem to be any plurality involved in the semantics of the phrase, not even metaphorically. (It means ‘in earnest’, ‘really’, ‘truthfully’.)

We may get at a solution if we look at phrases like many thanks and many apologies, in which there clearly is a plural S on each respective noun. But here it makes sense. You can easily think of many acts of thanking or apologising, so here the plural meaning is semantically justified. The assumption is, of course, that the more you thank or apologise, the more sincere you are. However, when we say many thanks, we say just that. We don’t usually go on actually thanking multiple times (although that may happen, too). The point here being that the plural forms’ major function is to intensify or emphasize the act of thanking or apologising, not to mark a plurality of acts as such (which in these phrases would only count as a minor, secondary function).

It is conceivable that it is this intensifying function of the plural S that is being used in for realz. Hence in this phrase at least, English plural S seems to have developed a function devoid of plurality. If that really is so, then it would be interesting to see if this intensifying S pops up elsewhere in the language.

(Another explanation would be that there’s some cross-linguistic interference going on, namely, from Spanish de veras, in which veras is a plural noun with a Spanish plural marker S. If that’s the case, then it would seem that English has incorporated the Spanish plural S as an intensifier, and again, devoid of plurality.)

Don’t say he’s foreign

Here’s an odd bit of language usage.

What qualifies something or someone to be of a "foreign persuasion"? In its most literal interpretation, you would expect it to refer to someone being influenced by a foreigner, a foreign nation, or otherwise something foreign. After some googling, it seems clear that that is in fact also how many people use it.

However, the phrase has another usage, too, and an odd one at that. For some people, it’s a roundabout way of referring to foreign (and foreigner?), as when writing about "films of the independent and foreign persuasion", or the "foreign persuasion in NASCAR" (referring to foreign-born drivers). Can NASCAR drivers be persuaded to become foreign-born?

In those contexts, "foreign persuasion" doesn’t refer to any particular opinions (as in Christian persuasion), or people who have been persuaded into believing or doing something. It’s simply used as a tortuous alternative to foreign.

When did foreign become a derogatory word in English?

How literal is literal?

Have you noticed that literally doesn’t literally mean ‘literally’ anymore?

It’s now quite frequently used as a general intensifier. I’ve only recently begun to notice it in phrases like I literally died laughing and I literally worked myself to death. Online dictionaries say this is an "informal" usage.

Compact English Dictionary:

1. in a literal manner or sense
2. informal used for emphasis (rather than to suggest literal truth)

Cambridge International Dictionary of English:

1. used to emphasize what you are saying
  <He missed that kick literally by miles>
  <I was literally bowled over by the news>
2. simply or just
  <Then you literally cut the sausage down the middle>

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

1. in a literal sense or manner : actually
  <took the remark literally>
  <was literally insane>
2. in effect : virtually
  <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

They add:

Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

None of my readily available print dictionaries mention this "informal" usage, although the thesaurus part of Collins dictionary and thesaurus (publ. 1987) lists actually and really under literally, words which can similarly be used for emphasis. Also, one of my English-Swedish dictionaries, Engelsk-Svensk ordbok by Kärre, Lindqvist, Nöjd & Redin, publ. 1938, does add "fullkomligt" (meaning ‘entirely’) as a possible translation for literally, but labels it "familjärt" (i.e. colloquial).

It’s use for emphasis must be fairly new. At least I’ve just started noticing it, although that’s admittedly no proof of anything but my observational skills. However, older dictionaries don’t seem to recognise it at all. For instance, the online version of Webster’s 1828 dictionary says:

1. According to the primary and natural import of words; not figuratively.
  <A man and his wife cannot be literally one flesh>
2. With close adherence to words; word by word.
  <So wild and ungovernable a poet cannot be translated literally.>

(The same appears in the online version of Webster’s 1913 edition.)

Anyway, I’m not opposing this (new?) usage. The fact that words change meaning is an inevitable and natural feature of any living language. It’s a sign of health. Word meanings are only stable in dead languages.

Slips of the tongue: read vs wrote

I’ve noticed that I sometimes mix read (past tense) and wrote. When intending to say I just read a good book, I might say I just wrote a good book instead. Or, instead of saying I just wrote a letter, I could just as well say I just read a letter. This has bugged me for some time. I refuse to believe that I’m going crazy. That just can’t be.

The curious thing is that I only seem to mix the past tense forms (read, wrote), and never the present tense forms (read, write). At least I can’t ever recall having made a mix involving present tense forms.

The fact that read and write are semantically linked concepts certainly plays a part, but apparently not sufficiently so in order to cause the mixing by itself. Otherwise I would be making mistakes involving the present tense forms, too. But I don’t. I’m pretty sure about that. Hence the answer must be something else, or at least something additional to that.

The best explanation I can come up with is that my brain links the two past tense forms via a chain of associations that looks something like this:

READ (past tense)
sounds like
  |
RED
means the same things as
  |
ROT (German)
sounds like
  |
WROTE

Indeed, that’s a perfectly logical chain of associations via phonetics, semantics (plus a little bit of phonetics), and phonetics again. And it works both ways, of course. The fact that it involves two languages (English and German) may seem a bit unintuitive at first, but really isn’t. I did study German for seven years, after all.

How’s that for a home-spun theory.