This is literally a super-important column - Los Angeles Times
Advertisement

This is literally a super-important column

Share via

JUNE CASAGRANDE

Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, “The Business of Language” likes

to bring you important breaking news from around the globe -- the big

stories that touch your lives.

So it is with great pride that we (that is, I) are (that is, am)

the first to bring you news of truly colossal proportions. Just in

from the Far East (far from me, that is) comes an innovation in

transportation technology so immense it could solve the Southland’s

transportation problems -- indeed, the world’s transportation

problems -- overnight.

Most delicious about this scoop is the fact that this little

column nabbed the story right from under the nose of the mighty Los

Angeles Times. Renowned business columnist James Flanigan had the

story in the palm of his hands but failed to see the forest for the

trees when he wrote the first sentence of his Aug. 8 column on the

auto parts manufacturing industry: “In the ever-more competitive

global economy, China is now in the driver’s seat -- literally.”

That’s right, there now exists a car so big it can hold

1.3-billion people.

And you heard it here first, folks.

OK. I’m not the first journalist to take a jab at someone’s

questionable use of the word “literally.” I distinctly remember years

ago a co-worker laughing out loud recounting the time a television

newscaster said something to the effect of: “The town has been

brought literally to its knees.”

But seriously: What’s the deal with that? Why did it become

acceptable to use “literally” to mean “sort of” or “kind of” or

“almost literally” or “please note the clever double entendre” -- all

of which are pretty much the opposite of “literally”? Lots of

language authorities argue that “literally” can be used as an

“intensive,” meaning to add emphasis, instead of using it to

distinguish the literal from the figurative. But when you use

“literally” to add emphasis to something that is, in fact, a figure

of speech, you’ve got to pause and appreciate the irony.

Speaking of the Far East, it’s physically closer to me now. And I

mean that literally. Since our last communique, I’ve packed up the

contents of my Santa Monica apartment and unpacked them into a brand

new, beautiful Pasadena house. Not literally, though. The house isn’t

new. It’s just new to us. As are terms like “mortgage,” “seller’s

market” and “house poor.”

What’s in all this for you, you ask? I’ll tell you what. For about

a year, I’ve been looking for an excuse to do a column about the

correct way to write addresses. Now that I have a new address, here

we go.

Have you ever wondered why you’ll see “Newport Boulevard” spelled

out in a newspaper article, but then, in the same newspaper or even

the same article, it will appear abbreviated: “Newport Blvd.”? Then,

were you immensely proud of yourself when, through deductive

reasoning, you realized the difference is that one included a street

number and the other did not? And then, was your pride turned on its

tuchis when you later noticed that “Jamboree Road” was written the

same way whether the street address preceded it?

Well, your wondering days are over. Here’s the rule followed by

most newspapers: Abbreviate only “avenue,” “boulevard” and “street”

and only when they’re part of an actual address. So, James Flanigan’s

address might be 123 Literal Ave. But when you’re saying only the

name of the avenue, think of it as just that -- a name -- and spell

it out: James Flanigan lives on Literal Avenue. Ditto for

Breachoflogic Boulevard and Stretch Street. Conversely, if Flanigan

lived on Illogical Lane, Error Terrace or Wrong Way, you would not

abbreviate the street names regardless of whether a number appeared

in front of them. Again, that’s because only the Big Three warrant

abbreviation.

Of course, this is just one style. Books, on the other hand, often

spell things out. Choose whichever approach you like. The important

thing is to be consistent, because consistency counts (but not

literally).

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].

Advertisement