Apolitical Staples

Thanks for the tips on those words! I’m always interested in learning about the original meanings of commonly used (or misused) words.

That being said, I don’t think we have to be sticklers here. You mention that we should never again use “enormity” to describe how large something is, and I agree, but the Oxford English Dictionary (surely still THE authority on what English words mean) does mention as one of the definitions of “enormity” as “Excess in magnitude; hugeness, vastness.” and the word was first used in that sense in 1792 (again, according to the OED) so, just for the record, it’s not some MODERN misuse. And it also lists a concurrent definition (a “humourous” one) as “Something enormous”. Now, you’re correct that the OED does consider these definitions to be obsolete, and not technically correct anymore, but then again “monstrous wickedness” isn’t the first definition in the OED either (though you’re right that it seems to be the most correct). The first definition in the OED is it’s original definition, being “Divergence from a normal standard or type; abnormality, irregularity.” (which I grant is also now considered an obsolete definition).

You’re right about decimation too, but I don’t think anyone is using “decimation” in 2006 to actually mean “The exaction of tithes, or of a tax of one-tenth; the tithe or tax itself”, or “The selection by lot of every tenth man to be put to death, as a punishment in cases of mutiny or other offence by a body of soldiers, etc.” (which is the definition I take it you prefer). Although, even here I would point out that the term used in this way refers to the DEATH of one in ten (or in the later definition the “killing or destruction”), and as none of those Liberals who lost their seats in the last election were actually executed subsequently (that I know of) the electoral loss of even the entire caucus would not have been a “decimation” in this sense of the term. Besides, I think people generally use the second (loose) usage of the third definition: “a. The killing or destruction of one in every ten. b. loosely. Destruction of a large proportion; subjection to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality”, and as far as I can see, the OED does not consider this third definition, or its loose usage to be either anachronistic, or incorrect. The English language is a wonderful and complex thing, and whenever someone points out the misuse of a word (unless it is a GROSS misuse) I always think of the fact that Shakespeare was known to spell his own name several different ways on different documents, and I decide not to nit-pick too much as long as the OED says the definition someone is using is worth mentioning in their publication, even if it is not strictly correct.

That was fun. Thanks for an excuse to go looking through the OED.

I have to go get a life now.

:-)

Back in the gloomy days of the fractured Canadian Alliance under Day, the Liberals pretty well had ALL the advantages over us. But once Harper took over as CA leader, it all started to turn around. At first almost imperceptibly, then dramatically with the CA/PC merger. And it just gained momentum to where we are now. And the Libs have lost almost ALL their advantages. What have they got left—a Senate majority, and still a bunch of advocates masquerading as “unbiased” media. Not nearly enough to stop Harper. The Libs need some catastrophic outside events to intervene on their behalf. Or a merger of the left, but there’s nobody with the savvy to pull that off.