A Dictionary of Cont..

intent 252
late. These particular words are conventional
intensives and actually make a statement more
emphatic. But some words used as intensives
may have the opposite efIect.
When a certain kind of adverb, such as fearfully,
frightfully, dreadfully, is used merely to
intensify an adjective, it becomes so weak that
the entire statement is weakened. Z am sorry is
a stronger statement than I am dreadfully sorry.
When used properly, these words are among
the strongest in the language. Carl Sandburg,
describing a fish peddler, says: his face is that
of a man terribly glad to be selling fish. Here
terribly keeps its meaning and is very strong.
But if the fish peddler himself said: Z am terribly
glad to do it, the statement becomes ridiculously
weak. This is because all these words,
terribly, dreadfully, and so on, mean “inspiring
fear or awe” and can only be used properly
by an observer who experiences the emotion. A
man may say that he feels a terrible joy but
he cannot say that he himself is terribly glad.
The people around him must be the judge of
that. These words, terribly, dreadfully, etc.,
cannot retain their meaning when used as pure
intensives. They become mere substitutes for
very, and the fact that the speaker is not satisfied
with very but is casting around for a
stronger word shows that the emotion is not
overwhelming. What he is feeling is obviously
less important to him than the effect he wants
to make.
Adjectives are frequently used before other
adjectives as intensives, that is, as words meaning
primarily “in a high degree,” as in icy cold,
red hot, dead tired. In such combinations the
first word is functioning as an adverb but that
does not make these expressions “ungrammatical.”
This is a natural English construction that
no one thought of questioning until recently.
Some combinations of this kind are no longer
considered standard, such as dreadful sorry,
powerful glad. But others, made on exactly the
same pattern, are still literary English. Whether
one of these expressions is standard or not
depends entirely on what sort of people use it.
There is nothing wrong in the pattern itself and
as a rule nothing is gained by giving the first
word a clearly adverbial form. Deadly tired
and powerfully glad, for example, are pathetic
attempts to be “correct” and do not improve
the original forms, which at least have the advantage
of being natural English. See horrible,
etc.
intent; intention. Though intent and intention are
interchangeable in the meaning of that which is
intended, purpose, aim, design, intent is now
slightly archaic and to most Americans would
seem bookish or a little affected. There are
occasions, of course, when one wants to be
bookish or wants the effect of the less common
word. But except on such occasions it should
be, of these two words, intention.
intentionally. See advisedly.
intents and purposes, to all. The full legal phrase
used to be to all intents, constructions, and
purposes. Even simplified, however, it is a
wordy way of saying practically. It is a hackneyed
way, too.
interesting. Znteresting is one of the most overworked
words in the language. It would be a
good exercise for the student, every time he
finds himself about to write the word, to search
his mind to see if there is not some more accurate
adjective that could be used in its stead,
something that would express the intended
meaning more forcefully, with greater freshness.
How about alarming, arresting, attractive,
curious, gratifying, pleasing, puzzling, remarkable,
striking, or any one of a hundred other
words?
interfere; interference. Sometimes a child that
walks awkwardly will strike one ankle bone
against the other, often with sufficient force to
cause abrasion of the skin and bleeding. Among
some old-fashioned people this is called interfering
and those who hear the word so used for
the first time probably assume that is some
quaint derivative meaning. But, actually, this
is the original meaning (as a term in farriery)
and butting in, meddling, intervening, obstructing
an opposing player in football, and the
jumbling of radio signals are the derivative
meanings.
The word interference has two meanings
in American usage that are not recognized in
English usage. It is a technical term in our
Patent Office for a proceeding to determine
priority (An application for a patent which,
after an interference litigation with Edison, was
finally issued to Maxim). And, as has been indicated
above, it is a term in football for interposing
between a runner and a tackler to obstruct
the tackler (As any football player knows,
to win a game you have to have good interference)
.
interject; interpolate. To interject is to throw or
cast in between. As a procedure in conversation
it means to remark parenthetically in an interruption.
It may be transitive (She interjected
one of her characteristically absurd remarks)
or intransitive (She frequently interjected and
otherwise made herself a nuisance). Some
writers insist that properly it can only be transitive,
but usage simply does not support this.
To interpolate is, strictly, to alter a text by
the insertion of new matter, especially when
the matter is spurious and the insertion done
without authorization or with intent to deceive
(These passages have definitely been shown to
be interpolations and no reputable scholar has
accepted them as genuine for centuries). It is
not always used in the pejorative sense, however;
it often means no more than to insert a
passage or, in conversation, a comment. When
so used it is a milder word than interject. It
suggests a less rude form of breaking into another’s
talk, more of an addition to than an
interruption of the conversation.
interjections. These are free-floating words, or
meaningless syllables, that interrupt the orderly
progress of speech. They are accepted as evi-