"all" = very; quite

[Jonathan Lighter]

Probably we can't in many cases.  But the distinction seems real enough where a line can be drawn with some confidence.

I don't know how otherwise to account for the feeling - surely not mine alone - that constructions like "all worried" somehow differ noticeably from "this idea is all wrong." Perhaps they are more colloquial or more modern, though the Caxton cite presents a challenge to this idea.

If we had a number of pre-1700 exx. of "all worried," "all excited," etc. (clearly referring to individual persons, of course) I would happily return to the conventional fold.

JL



Benjamin Zimmer <bgzimmer at RCI.RUTGERS.EDU> wrote:
---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: American Dialect Society
Poster: Benjamin Zimmer
Subject: Re: "all" = very; quite
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:23:25 -0700, Jonathan Lighter wrote:

>Now I've got it *all* figured out. The OED definition fails to
>distinguish between two distinguishable meanings of "all."
>
>Cf. these exx.:
>
>1. When we saw her, sire, she was all demoniac.
>
>2. When we saw her, dude, she was all demoniac.
>
>In (1), the meaning of demoniac is - presumably - literal: the lady in
>Caxton, cited by Ben and OED, is possessed by a demon. She is *utterly
>and wholly* possessed. The demon controls her thoroughly.
>
>In (2), however, "demoniac" means - presumably (in our hyperbolic modern
>world) - "behaving as though demoniac; wild; frantic." She is *extremely
>or very* wild or frantic. In fact, in current usage, she might be merely
>"rather" wild or frantic. Her emotions are the focus, not her entire
>capacities as a human being.
>
>Admittedly much of the discord between (1) and (2) stems from the
>contrast between formal "lady" and less formal; "dude," but I chose them
>to point up the distinct nuances of the strong and weak senses of
>"demoniac." Just as the strong sense is unlikely to be intended in (2)
>because of its offhand character, the strong sense of "all" is equally
>unlikely.
>
>If the weasel in my original example looks "all worried," he doesn't
>look *utterly or wholly" worried. he looks *very or extremely* worried.
>The adverbs "utterly" and "wholly" are not quite idiomatic here. They
>refer to completeness rather than mere intensity.
>
>Cf.
>
>3. I'm all worn out. = utterly; wholly
>
>4. I'm all excited. = extremely; rather
>
>In (3), my capacity to continue is entirely used up. In (4), my emotion
>has reached a higher than usual pitch.
>
>My suspicion is that early exx. of adv. "all" in such contexts
>overwhelmingly emphasize *utterness and completeness,* while more modern
>exx. are about equally likely to emphasize *intensity.*
>
>All of this may be hairsplitting at its worst, and my argument may be
>*all* (utterly and wholly) wrong, but if so I won't get *all* (extremely
>or rather) upset about it, still less *all* [ambiguous here because of
>the vivid physical connotations of the following idiom] bent out of
>shape.

It does seem like a difficult line to draw. Take for instance OED's 1880
cite from Browning, "All-agog to have me trespass," or (under "a-quiver")
the 1883 cite, "All aquiver with the fun." One could say in these cases
that the person is utterly or completely agog/aquiver, but how would one
be able to distinguish if the sense is rather that the person is
*intensely* agog/aquiver?


--Ben Zimmer


---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.