owlfish: (Feast)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] owlfish at 01:10am on 12/05/2009 under ,
At dinner the other night, the following exchange:

She: This cutlery is literally 100 years old.
Me: Literally?
She: Well...
Me: Approximately?
She: *agrees and comments on the difficulty of getting it right to the very day*

Later, after I've had a chance to read my fork:

Me: You've seriously underestimated the age of this fork. It's 162 years old.
She: How can you tell?
Me: I read the year of manufacture* on the fork. The maker's mark on the knife was too small to read without a magnifying glass.
She: *boggles*
Me: But I'm sure the pattern was still in use forty years later!

* Or possible just the year the pattern mode was made. Still, unless its known to be a later use of the pattern, I'd claim the greater age for the fork, if at all appropriate, and since it's being presented as a historically-situated object.
There are 4 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] arcana-mundi.livejournal.com at 07:40am on 12/05/2009
This is why historians rarely get invited to nice dinner parties! Historicizing the flatware and arguing about dates.
 
posted by [identity profile] makyo.livejournal.com at 07:54am on 12/05/2009
The widespread misuse of the word "literally" (typically as a synonym for "really") amuses me. I've taken to wondering how something could be, for example, metaphorically a hundred years old.
 
posted by [identity profile] pennski.livejournal.com at 06:29pm on 12/05/2009
It's even better when people use it in the middle of cliches "So then, I literally exploded!"
 
posted by [identity profile] arcana-mundi.livejournal.com at 06:00pm on 12/05/2009
Shana, some anonymous bunny boiler is posting 1-900-SEXXXYTIME stuff in your comments!

October

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10 11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31