< Back to front page Text size +

Language change we can believe in

Posted by Jan Freeman November 8, 2008 12:33 PM
obama.bmp

Ronald Reagan believed that enormity meant "vastness": ''I have always been well aware of the enormity of [the job of President]," he said in 1981. William Safire thought that was just fine: "The time has come to abandon the ramparts on enormity's connotations of wickedness," he wrote that same year in his New York Times language column.

Bill Clinton agreed. "Our support of reform must combine patience for the enormity of the task and vigilance for our fundamental interests," he said in his 1994 State of the Union speech.

Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice president, education activist, and Ph.D. in English, did too: "The enormity of the honor ... is just sinking in," Cheney said, more than once, after her husband's nomination.

Now Barack Obama is on the bandwagon; he has spoken of "the enormity of the task that lies ahead" in both post-election speeches.

Will this be the administration that ends the nitpicking over enormity?

A few critics are already tut-tutting, because for a century and more we've been told by usage writers to use enormity only for "great wickedness."

Dictionaries have not necessarily agreed. Webster's Second unabridged (1934, 1959) defined enormity as "State or quality of exceeding a measure or rule, or of being immoderate, monstrous, or outrageous." And the earliest English sense, says the OED, was "Divergence from a normal standard or type," reflecting the etymology of the word, literally "outside the norm."

The use of enormity to mean merely "vastness" dates to the late 18th century; in the late 19th, an editor of the OED added the note "this use is now regarded as incorrect." The American Heritage Usage Panel, as of 2002, agreed, by a margin of 59 percent to 41 percent. But the disapproval rating was down sharply from 1967, when 93 percent rejected enormity for "hugeness."

And the naysayers have never prevailed upon actual usage, as the multitude of quotations under enormity in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage shows. The sense presidential speechwriters like -- implying "a size that is daunting or overwhelming" -- is one of the commoner figurative uses.

Grant Barrett, language blogger and co-host of the radio show "A Way With Words," takes a middle ground on enormity: He doesn't disapprove of Obama's usage, "but I also believe that since the term is a bit 'skunked,' -- that is, there is a dispute about proper usage -- that in a speech of historical importance it should have been avoided."

On the other hand, this latest presidential seal of approval may help it get un-skunked faster. Wouldn't it be nice if four years from now, the dispute over enormity was forgotten?

(Photo: Rick Bowmer/Associated Press)

  • CommentComment
  • Email E-mail

Email this article

Invalid email address
Invalid email address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

4 comments so far...
  1. Once again, the meaning the word is prescriptively "supposed" to have was totally unknown to me for the first 21 years of my life.

    Maybe other young people don't know the "right" meaning? Would that be a sign that the meaning is going to shift for good?

    Posted by GAC November 9, 08 12:38 AM
  1. The worst thing about this is that the "real" meaning will be lost, eliminating a perfectly good, expressive word from the language.

    Thirty years ago, in a college paper, I used "enormity" in the sense of great wickedness (I wasn't showing off; I knew the word and didn't realize it might be confusing) and my history professor, whom I respected a great deal, underlined the word and put three question marks in the margin, as if to say, "What the hell is this supposed to mean?" Sigh.

    Posted by Ed Kemmick November 11, 08 12:06 PM
  1. End the debate over "enormity"?

    Never.

    We might as well give up on "less" vs "fewer", and "who" vs "whom".

    And where to properly place punctuation in relation to quotation marks.

    Posted by pgb November 11, 08 05:32 PM
  1. I was amazed at James Kilpatrick's column a few weeks ago, in which he complained about something big being referred to as "enormous." His complaint was that "enormous" carries some of the same wickedness connotations as "enormity", so the writer should have chosen another adjective. So for years he exhorts people to maintain the semantic difference between "enormous" and "enormity," and not to use the latter when you really mean the former; and now he's saying that you can't even use "enormous" when all you mean is "big", because the meanings have bled into one another and we should respect that?

    Posted by Neal Whitman November 15, 08 10:45 PM
add your comment
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

Rules and realities of English usage from Boston Globe Ideas columnist Jan Freeman.
Jan Freeman, a former Boston Globe editor, has been writing the weekly column “The Word” since 1997. E-mail her at freeman@globe.com.
archives

browse this blog

by category