From Isabel Escoda, a Filipino journalist based in Hong Kong, January 2, 2010:Reading your latest [notice for Jose Carillo's English Forum], I have a vague feeling that some time ago I read somewhere (the late William Safire?) about the anomalous use of “overly,” which you use in your first sentence below:
In keeping with the spirit of the New Year, I thought we should be more forgiving of the overly exuberant figurative language of the print and broadcast media these past several days. But I think levity in journalistic language shouldn’t be pursued to the point of insensitivity and callousness, like what was done by a major Metro Manila broadsheet last January 31 when it reported that owing to the full moon, Mayon Volcano might extend the “courtesy” of “natural loud bangs and fireworks display” to the Albayanons as they welcomed the New Year.
Isn’t “over” an adverb, so making it doubly so by adding an “-ly” is anomalous?
Speaking of which, have you ever tackled the word “anomalous,” which Pinoys use to mean “criminal,” “scandalous”? As you know, the meaning is entirely different from the way most Pinoys use it
Happy New Year of the Tiger!
My reply to Isabel:A Happy and Prosperous New Year to you, too, Isabel!
Sorry to say at the outset that your vague feeling over my usage of “overly” in My Media Watch posting may not be justified. I think my usage of “overly” in that sentence isn’t anomalous; it’s a proper, perfectly grammatical adverb that means “to an excessive degree”—for short, “too,” as in “too exuberant.” The word “overly” actually dates back to 1806, according to my
Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, and I have not heard anyone, whether layman or linguist, quibble against the propriety of its usage. I’m not sure either if the late William Safire had ever considered “overly” anomalous; what I know is that he did think so in the case of the adverbs “hopefully” and “momentarily” and fiercely opposed the use of both.*
Yes, “over” is an adverb in the sense of “beyond some quantity, limit, or norm often by a specified amount or to a specified degree” or “in an excessive manner,” but as you know, it can also be an adjective (as in “the year is
over), preposition (run
over a hump), and transitive verb (she
overed the world record by 1.5 seconds). When “over” is used in its adjective sense, affixing “-ly” to it makes it an adverb, as in “2009 was an
overly disastrous year for many people in Luzon.” I really don’t think there’s anything anomalous in such usage of “overly.”
As to the adjective “anomalous,” yes, you’re right, Isabel, Pinoys do use the word to mean “criminal” and “scandalous,” which is not exactly the dictionary meaning of the word. Here’s how my
Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines it:
anomalousEtymology: Late Latin
anomalus, from Greek
anōmalos, literally, uneven, from
a- +
homalos even, from
homos same — more at SAME
Date: 1655
1 : inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected : IRREGULAR, UNUSUAL
2 a : of uncertain nature or classification b : marked by incongruity or contradiction : PARADOXICAL
In this dictionary sense, “anomalous” has no criminal or scandalous aspect—only irregularity or incongruity. I have a feeling that “anomalous” is a form of journalese in the Philippines for a possibly
criminal act (but one that can’t be called as such in print until the courts have rendered judgment on it) or a
scandalous act (but one that can’t be called as such in print until the arbiters of human foibles—clerics and newspaper editorial writers—have pontificated on it). Perhaps due to overuse in newspaper headlines in the Philippines, though, “anomalous” has come to be strongly and inextricably associated with criminal or scandalous behavior.
-------
*In the particular case of “hopefully,” the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language quotes William Safire as saying: “The word ‘hopefully’ has become the litmus test to determine whether one is a language snob or a language slob.” He fiercely opposed the use of “hopefully” in such constructions as “Hopefully, the electorate will be more sensible in their choices come election time,” arguing that it should be constructed as “It is hoped that the electorate will be more sensible in their choices come election time.” On the other hand, he considered “hopefully” to be correctly used in the sense of “full of hope,” as in “We all look hopefully on the next national elections to bring about the necessary reforms the country needs.” Eventually, however, in the face of its growing currency in the language, Safire relented on his opposition to “hopefully.”
As to “momentarily,” here’s what Safire thought of it, writing in his “On Language” column in the May 11, 1997 issue of The New York Times:
JUST A MOMENT
“Fasten your seat belts,” the flight attendant announces, “we will be landing momentarily.”
Sir John Kerr, the British Ambassador to the United States, soon to be Britain's top diplomatic civil servant, departs—or deplanes—with one gripe about the American language: “It’s the abuse of momentarily. When the stewardess says that, I think to myself: ‘We’ll be on the ground for only a moment before the plane rushes off again. I’d better hurry.’ But she doesn’t mean that at all.”
She means “in a moment.” Purists, most language mavens and British diplomats use momentarily to mean “'for a moment.”
I am prepared to bail out here. When a word’s meaning is in such flux, you can’t say which definition is correct. If you’re deeply in the moment, and have to use that word, say
“'We’ll be landing in a moment, if we don’t crash”—or if “fleetingly” is your intent, forget the adverbial form and try “I’m only staying for a moment—don’t get up.”
Soon is such a beautiful word. Try it, briefly.
