Elsewhere dale said

quote:

the debauching of the Mother Tongue

I just wondered if this is a legitimate use of "debauch".

The verb means "corrupt morally" and surely that is something that can only be done to a person. I wonder if "debasing" was the word that was being sought. This can mean the same as debauch but also means "lower the quality, value, or character of".

(Compact OED)

Interesting question, Bob. I'd have said it's a misuse.

But if so, it's apparently become common. Google-News has 13 distinct hits for debauch right now, and most of them arer as a noun, but they include these:

The Sunday Times, Nov. 25: consultancy firms managed to debauch the very idea of best practices.

Cato Institute, Nov. 26: trade protection in all its guises, including efforts to debauch the dollar in the name of trade fairness.

Seattle Times, Nov. 5: People would disobey it, and the attempt to enforce it would debauch the law. There is a limit to the amount of nannyism that people can stand.

SilverSeek.com, CO, Nov: 3: Johnn Maynard Keynes: "Lenin was certainly right, there is no more positive, or subtle means of destroying the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency."

I don't like it, though.

I just think we have to be cautious about what we find on Google. You can find almost anything on Google.

You can, but wordnerd was using google news which, as I understand it, is just repeating stuff from the newspapers. And when The Sunday Times is making the mistake it's time to evaluate whether its a mistake at all.

I still think it is. I still say you can debauch a person but not a thing as a thing has no moral judgment to be corrupted.

FWIW, one of the meanings of debauch is "To reduce the value, quality, or excellence of; debase."

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
FWIW, one of the meanings of debauch is "To reduce the value, quality, or excellence of; debase."

I agree; but that spreads the meanig and application of the word and hence lessens its precise meaning. Sadly, that is a common trend, and though it may reflect the development of language, in my view it does not improve it.

but that spreads the meanig and application of the word and hence lessens its precise meaning

It is interesting that the first entry for debauch in the OED1 (with the earliest citationof its use), is: "To turn or lead away, entice seduce, from one to whom service or allegiance is due: e.g., soldiers or allies from a leader, a wife or children from husband or father, etc. (Usually with the connotation 'lead astray, mislead'.) Rarely with against." So, we see that its meaning in English ahs already changed from a matter of allegiance to the separation of a woman from her chastity. (The primary meaning is closer to the original French sense of the word.) If semantic change, which is the observed norm in all languages studied, inevitably leads to the degredation of language, how can anybody communicate? Obviously, it's either wrong to suppose that change corrupts language, or there's something else building up the language at the same time. What is that something else? I think that people handle polysemy facilely. If they are really trying to communicate, they disambiguate when necessary. Note that the primary meaning of débaucher is 'to discharge dismiss (a person from their duty)', and it is an extended, figurative meaning 'to seduce'.

ZMJ, I did say I agree!!! But if you will argue, everything you cite refers to a person or to debasement of personal values. To apply it more widely to non-human issues in my opinion debases the word. As BobHale said: "I still say you can debauch a person but not a thing as a thing has no moral judgment to be corrupted."

To apply it more widely to non-human issues in my opinion debases the word.

I, too, would not use debauch in reference to a inanimate thing, but I would continue to argue that its newer meaning does nothing to the state of the language: either enriching or degrading it.