Erin Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Trying the Huffington Post approach to thread titles here. Please forgive me if you were unfairly baited. For a while I have been noticing that people are using the phrase "in person" in a way that doesn't feel quite right to me. For example, I heard such utterances as: *The Tesla sure looks cool, but I'd have to see it in person to render my final verdict. *I don't think it's a good idea to buy jewelry online; it's the kind of thing you'd really need to see in person before you buy it. For me, those sound incorrect. For me, these usages are better: If you think the baby is cute in the video, wait till you see him in person. This is the sort of thing I'd prefer to discuss in person, not on the phone. What's the difference? You can probably figure it out--the 'person' is the human, not the object. So if you see someone in person, that means you see him live, in the flesh. And to me, it doesn't make sense to say that you're going to see a thing in person, because to me, it sounds like the thing is alive. Yeah, of course the next question will be how to express the same idea without using 'in person'? Well, what's wrong with just 'see'? As in 'I'd have to see the Tesla to be sure.' And in some cases, I suppose we could say 'I'd have to see the Tesla up close to be sure.' Yes, I know that language changes, evolves, etc. and that words and phrases take on new meanings over time. Anyone else agree as strongly as I do? Or disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.