« Quote of the Day |
| Profile THIS »
No, there was no Hurricane Hugh in the Bay Area:
Apparently the proofreader was indisposed for some other reason.
(Piedmont Avenue, Oakland.)
P.S. Yes, I know the difference between enormity and enormousness.
Posted at 09:55 AM in Editing, Oakland, Signs, Spelling, They Said WHAT??? | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The idea that "enormity" should only be used with a negative moral judgment seems to be completely made-up. For over 100 years it has been used to denote great size, gravity or monstrousness, without a moral judgment. MWDEU says "Both editions [of Webster 1909 and Webster's Second] have synonymy notes that distinguish between enormity and enormousness by stressing the sense of wickedness for enormity. It seems possible that the critics derived their opinion from the synonymy notes, since they clearly have not heeded the definitions."
August 13, 2008 at 12:09 PM
(which of course does not mean that the difference does not exist for some people.)
August 13, 2008 at 12:47 PM
@Goofy: Yes, I'm aware that there's some overlap between the two words, although as an ex-copyeditor I am conditioned to maintain the wall of meaning between them. Besides, I was trying to have some fun with "huge = enormous" and "proofreading malfeasance = enormity."
I'll try softer next time.
Nancy Friedman |
August 13, 2008 at 04:13 PM
"oh, the softer?"
August 14, 2008 at 06:57 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Your email address:Powered by FeedBlitz