Semantic
Skunking
by
Howard
Richler
If
my Lexpert editor gives me fulsome
praise should I be a)bemused,
b)disinterested
or
c)nonplussed?
Lexicographer
Bryan Garner in Garner's
Modern American Usage states
that “when a
word
undergoes a marked change from one use to another – a phrase that
might take ten
years
or a hundred- it's likely to be the subject of dispute.” He adds
that “a word is most
hotly
disputed in the middle of the process: any use of it is likely to
distract some
readers.”
A good example of this process is the word “fulsome.” Until
recently this
word's
dominant meaning was “offensively
excessive” but increasingly it is used by
many
erudite people, even Bay Street attorneys, to mean “extravagant.”
Garner
characterizes
such a disputed word as “skunked” and as best avoided. Hence,
although
there
might be some ancient pedant who believes that “egregious”
should still mean
remarkably
good as it literally means in Latin, “above the flock,” the fact
remains that it
has
not been used in a positive sense since 1845. Ergo, by Garner's
dictum, egregious
would
not qualify as a skunked word.
The reality, of what
qualifies as a “skunked” word is not as clear-cut as Garner
pretends.
Can
anyone say definitively when a word has been “skunked”? Garner
includes in his
list
of skunked words, “decimate” and “hopefully” whereas I, and
many others, regard
the
use of “decimate” to mean “kill one-tenth and the exclusive
use of “hopefully” to
mean
only “in a hopeful manner” and not “one hopes,” to be
hopelessly moribund.
Some
prescriptive language commentators decry the use of “jejune” to
mean “childish”
and
point out that change in meaning stemmed from the mistaken belief
that the word
stemmed
from the French word for “young” jeune
and
the Latin juvenus.
Notwithstanding
this mistaken belief, dictionaries accept “childish” as one of
the meanings of “jejune.” Similarly, some language purists
argue that the word “dilemma''
should
only be used to refer to a choice between two unpleasant
alternatives and not a
plight
or predicament, but most dictionaries allow for this latter sense.
Also,
we must acknowledge that some usages that might not be acceptable in
British
English
are acceptable in North American English. Examples of such are the
verbs
“careen”
and “aggravate.” The former (notwithstanding that it should be
“career”) is
common
in North America English just as using aggravate to mean “annoy”
is well
established
in both Canada and the USA. Relative to the use of aggravate to mean
“annoy,”
Wynford Hicks advises in Quite
Literally,
“Use with care since purists
disapprove
of the second {annoy} usage.” The reality, however, is that this
usage has
been
entrenched in North America for many decades.
And
who is to be the final arbiter as to what qualifies as proper
English? According to
Merriam-Webster
Collegiate Dictionary
and other American dictionaries “infer”
means
the same as “imply,” “peruse” means not only to “examine
carefully” but to “read
over
in a casual manner,” “disinterested” can mean “not
interested” as well as
“impartial,”
“enormity” can mean the same as “enormousness.” and
“bemused” can
mean
“mildly amused” as well as “bewildered.” I do not agree
with all these laissez-
faire
attitudes. For example, I believe the distinction between
disinterested and
uninterested
is important and, I use enormity only to mean “wickedness” not
“size.”
This
being said, I believe that when an overwhelming majority of people
use a word in a
certain
way, (80% to 90% I believe constitutes an overwhelming majority) that
we must
recognize
the newer sense of the word, notwithstanding that an erudite minority
regard it
as
“wrong.” On the other hand, when the newer sense of a word is
not entrenched I
believe
we should be loath to accept it. For example, many people use
“non-plussed” to
mean
“unfazed” rather than “perplexed,” but since this newer usage
is found currently in
no
more than one-half of cases, I propose that at least for the moment
it should be
avoided
lest your meaning be misunderstood.
Recently
deceased language commentator William Safire started out as a rigid
prescriptivist
but even he
acknowledged
in his book
In Love With Norma Loquendi that
the
masses represent the final arbiter of language: “The rules laid
down by elites are to
be
respected, but in the end democracy, which goes by the name of common
usage, will
work
its will..When the population challenges the order over a period of
time, Norma
Loquendi
- the everyday voice of the native speaker - is the heroine who
changes the
order
and raises a new standard.”
hrichler@gmail.com
Howard's
next book From
Gay (Happy) to Gay (Homosexual) and other mysterious
semantic
shifts is
being published by Ronsdale Press in Spring 2013.
