This is neat: over at the London Review of Books they're literally taking the term 'literally' apart.
We are, you will have noticed, perversely fond of the first person plural round here; this blog is awash with the royal 'we'. Over at the Guardian they've been discussing the merits or otherwise of a linguistic affectation which, it's suggested, gives copy a pompous sense of exclusivity. It is, in fact, self-exclusionary. "'We' is 'us'," notes one commenter. Which implies everyone else is 'them'. Personally, I like it. Judicious deployment suggests a certain arch detachment which we find pleasing in a slightly supercilious way. Shall we stop using it? Is it just annoying? I'm putting the issue to the hivemind that helps maintain this blog. We shall let you know.
'Glamour': in its original meaning - to mystify, manipulate or cast a spell. Derived from the seventeenth century Scottish word 'gramarye' - from which also comes 'grimoire', a manual for invoking demons - itself a derivation of the English word 'grammar', referring to scholarship and - particularly - any form of occult learning.