Mike Ruskai wrote:
Some dictionaries take the position of setting usage. Some take the
position of reflecting usage. OED is more towards the former, and Webster
far past the end of the latter.

I don't think so. The OED is explicitly a descriptivist dictionary. I
believe they state that in one of their extensive forewords.

It's really only recently that writers and reporters have started using
enormity to mean enormousness. Websters is merely reflecting that change.
I have an unabridged 1983 revision Websters which lists large size as
definition #3, qualifying it as rare.

I agree that it is rare. What's more, most of the time, I get the vague
impression that the speaker or writer is unaware that it has another
definition. I would consider that to be uninformed usage.

Check this out for a small discussion about the recent incorrect usage of
enormity (though I agree that you're particular usage here easily
qualifies for the standard definition g):

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enormity

My other pet language peeve is moot. Moot means arguable. People say an
issue is moot when they mean precisely the opposite - that it's not worth
arguing about anymore.

There was an intermediate sense--that an issue was worth debating, but
the debate was academic; it didn't have any real relevance anymore.

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with either use of the word
"moot"; it's not a pet peeve for me at all. (But I'm not consistent. I
don't like when people use "flaunt" as though they meant "flout.")

I don't object words acquiring new meanings over time, but I think it's
silly to change them sharply rather than gradually (or completely reverse
the meaning, as with moot).

That either happens or it doesn't. I object to unclear usage more than
this.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt