RETRACTION - DAVE BARRETT & HIGH POINT SCIENTIFIC

On 19 Jun 2004 13:54:50 GMT, Rod Mollise wrote:



Enormity means depraved abnormality.

Hi Mike:

Sorry to nitpick right back, old buddy ;-)

Websters says (I'm too lazy to find a magnifying glass and look it up in my two
volume OED):

"Enormity, quality of being enormous; great wickedness; atrocity."

The first definition is much more common in American-English usage. That is, it
_is_ a synonym for "enormousness." Your definition is correct, of course, if
less common.

Actually, in this case, both definitions are applicable.

Yes, I was an English major in an earlier life. ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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).


--
- Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.

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

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

"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...

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.

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).

I would like to add "notoriety" to your list. By definition, notoriety is
negative, but many people use it as a synonym for fame.

"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...

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.

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).

I would like to add "notoriety" to your list. By definition, notoriety is
negative, but many people use it as a synonym for fame.

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):

Hi Mike;

I have my pet peeves too...but...just keep telling yourself that English is a
living language. Its incredible strength is the way it "steals" words from
other languages and mutates the spellings and usages of the words it already
has. It may be infuriating, but it's a good thing. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

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):

Hi Mike;

I have my pet peeves too...but...just keep telling yourself that English is a
living language. Its incredible strength is the way it "steals" words from
other languages and mutates the spellings and usages of the words it already
has. It may be infuriating, but it's a good thing. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

"Paul Lawler" wrote in message link.net...
"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...

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.

I would like to add "notoriety" to your list. By definition, notoriety is
negative, but many people use it as a synonym for fame.

"Notoriety" is used only for negative fame. Fame for all the wrong
reasons. There lies the difference in comparison to plain "fame".
But it's a moot point. ;-)

Chris.B.Pedant IV

"Paul Lawler" wrote in message link.net...
"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...

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.

I would like to add "notoriety" to your list. By definition, notoriety is
negative, but many people use it as a synonym for fame.

"Notoriety" is used only for negative fame. Fame for all the wrong
reasons. There lies the difference in comparison to plain "fame".
But it's a moot point. ;-)

Chris.B.Pedant IV

"Mike Ruskai" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...

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.

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).

According to my dictionary there are two definitions for "moot" as an
adjective. And they do have reverse meanings.
moot (adj.)
1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2. Law.
a. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or
settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.