I bought Shufitz a Samuel Johnsons' Dictionary for Hannukah, and we are enjoying the discussion of words in it, especially the quotes.

I came across egregious, and the first definition was "eminent; remarkable; extraordinary," with the following quote: "He might be able to adorn this present age, and furnish history with the records of egregious exploits, both of art and valour." ~ More's Antidote against Atheism

Now, definition #2 was "eminantly bad." Still, I think it is curious that it had opposite meanings, though the former meaning seems to have disappeared.

Have any of you seen "egregious" to mean eminent or remarkable? Do you know any other words with 2 opposite meanings?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Do you know any other words with 2 opposite meanings?

---

Such words are called contranyms or antagonyms. Look here and here.

Tinman

[This message was edited by tinman on Tue Dec 23rd, 2003 at 22:47.]

Ahhh, oh, my memory isn't quite what is used to be, now is it? Sorry! This has been discussed several times, and in each thread I have posted!

I guess this thread was a "moot point!" [Maybe that will bring Arnie back! ] I do clearly remember that "moot" discussion, and, thanks to Arnie, I use it correctly now.

I wonder, though, in the case of "egregious," what made the meaning change over the years. I also have a question about one of the words you posted, Tinman. I am sure you are correct, but when does "put" mean to throw?

put(1) v.tr. 14 throw (esp. a shot or weight) as an athletic sport or exercise. OED.

Just one of 17 verb meanings. There are also around 40 more meanings, verbs, nouns and as part of idiomatic expressions.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
... when does "put" mean to throw?

---

Shot put. To "put the shot" means to throw a 16-pound metal ball (the "shot"). The current record is 75 feet, 10.25 inches (23.12 meters), according to Wikipedia. My record is about 2 feet.

I suppose "put out the cat" could mean "throw out the cat" and "put out the husband" ...

I can't think of any other times when "put" means "throw". Can anyone else?

Tinman

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinman:

I can't think of any other times when "put" means "throw". Can anyone else?

---

My daughter's boyfriend is a darts enthusiast and it is my understanding that one, for example, "puts the dart into the center ring." To me, this sounds like you walk over and fraudulently set up what would appear to have been an excellent shot but "put" in this sense equates to "throw."

With darts being more popular in the U.K. (I think, anyway) might I get a confirmation of this usage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:
My daughter's boyfriend is a darts enthusiast and it is my understanding that one, for example, "puts the dart into the center ring." To me, this sounds like you walk over and fraudulently set up what would appear to have been an excellent shot but "put" in this sense equates to "throw."

With darts being more popular in the U.K. (I think, anyway) might I get a confirmation of this usage?

---

I've certainly heard that usage but I suspect it's more akin to the ubiquitous use of "got" and "get".

"Get the darts in the centre" or "Put the darts in the centre" doesn't really mean "throw" as such it's more of a way of defining the objective. At least that's how I read it.

Why should I let the toad work
Squat on my life ?
Can't I use my wit as a pitchfork
And drive the brute off ?
Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Notwithstanding the eminent dictionaries, I don't accept that "to put," as in "to put a shot," means "to throw."

When you "throw" a tennis ball your arm is extended, and your motion carries the ball in an arc before you release it. You whip your shoulder roughly in a circle, addingh to that motion a snap of the elbow and the wrist. To get maximum distance, you want your arm-extension to be as great as possible. To me the words throw, toss, sling, fling and hurl all imply that sort of motion, with toss being casual and sling, fling and hurl being violent.

But a shot-put shot is far to heavy for that motion. Your arm simply isn't strong enough. (For example: Fully extend your arm out in front of you, and hold it there -- easy. Do it with an ordinary ball in your hand -- easy. Try it with a 16-lb. shot in your hand -- impossible.)

So the motion of shot-putting is very different. Instead of that sort of a circular fling, you push the shot away from you.

"Pushing the shot;" "putting the shot." See the connection? If you understand this use of "to put" as "to push out," rather than as "to throw," then such phases as "put out the cat" or "to put darts" (if you consider the motion used in darts) make a good deal more sense.

I'd think the dictionaries are simply wrong when they define to throw as "to propel through the air with a motion of the hand or arm," without regard to the type of motion.

[This message was edited by shufitz on Sat Dec 27th, 2003 at 23:07.]

One of the beauties of the English language is that is has words that are precise, words that are vague (or that can have many meanings) and words that can be either. "Throw" is one of the vague ones. To "throw" can mean all sorts of actions, most having the concept of sending something a distance. To throw a ball, a pot (on a potter's wheel) or a fit are all accurate uses of the verb but are not interchangeable.

Thus, while "to put" a shot is a form of throwing, throwing is not necessarily putting. Those who know about cricket will also know that bowling is not the same as throwing, although the overall concept - that of sending a ball a distance - is the same.

I recall we discussed this previously in a thread about Thesauri. Basically words having similar senses or expressing similar concepts are not necessary congruent, although they may be similar.

Richard English

Here is that discussion of thesauruses, Richard. [I note that in that thread Bob said that he prefers "thesauruses" to "thesauri", and I do too.]

I think this discussion also indicates how one word ("throw") can have many different meanings. Surely with "throwing" a ball, Shufitz is correct. It really is a lot different from "putting a shot." However, the same "throw a ball" concept is also very different from "throwing up" or using a "throw" when you are cold.

Just for giggles, Kalleh, look up "oats" in your Johnson dictionary.

"Oats": [Oh, yes, I had already seen that! ]

"A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people."

[Do we have any people from Scotland reading this board?]

BTW, I found, completely by mistake, another of those contranyms. In the Links for Linguaphiles thread I was about to say that I had "perused" Bob's link, meaning skimmed it. Then, I thought I'd better check to see that I had used the correct word. Sure enough, I hadn't! There was a usage note saying that "peruse" means to read thoroughly, but that people have been using it incorrectly to mean "glance over" or "skim." 66% of their Usage Panel finds that use unacceptable. Has anyone else, besides me, used it incorrectly? [Probably not! ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by shufitz:
I'd think the dictionaries are simply wrong when they define to throw as "to propel through the air with a motion of the hand or arm," without regard to the type of motion.

---

Perhaps you should help C J rewrite the OED.

Tinman

I've always thought of "peruse" as meaning "to read thoroughly", so I was surprised to learn that some people use it to mean "to skim". My guess is that this is caused by those people we've railed against in the past who will never use a simple word when a polysyllabic one is available. I mean people who start letters

quote:

---

I have perused your esteemed communication of December 29th...

---

Others receive such letters and make a guess from the context as to the meaning, wrongly in some cases. I feel sure that many people who use "peruse" have themselves picked it up in this way, and take it as a simple synonym for "read".

quote:

---

I feel sure that many people who use "peruse" have themselves picked it up in this way, and take it as a simple synonym for "read".

---

Maybe that's the case for "many people," but I used it to mean "scan over" or "skim," though I suppose I could have used "skim." Yet, "skim" has so many other meanings, and I thought I had a word with the more precise meaning. [BTW, I am not alone in that misunderstanding; I have asked others, and they have thought it to mean "skim," too.]

This board has been great for me because I have learned to be more discriminating about which words to use. I have also begun to realize how many nuances there are with words.

That is the problem with guessing at the meanings of unfamiliar words from the context. Confronted with "peruse", a percentage would guess correctly at "read carefully", some would guess at "read", and some others would guess "skim". The actual numbers who would arrived at each meaning would depend on the precise text.

I have no problem with "peruse" but there are many English words whose meaning I do not know.

And when I come across one such, I usually open my trusty OED. That's the way I develop my vocabulary.

The most recent word I had to look up was "eponymous", although I had seen it used many times. It was not until I decided to use it myself, though, that I realised that I didn't know its exact meaning. I had thought I did but, had I followed my guess, I'd have been wrong.

Presumably the eponymous Dr Johnson did know what it means.

Richard English

My logophile friend disagrees with the AHD Usage Panel's vote that "peruse" can't mean to skim. He said that he found this from "Carolyn's Corner," though I confess that I couldn't find where he found it:

"Peruse has long been a literary word, used by such famous authors as Shakespeare, Wordsworth, and Tennyson, and it tends to have a literary flavor even in our time. Peruse can suggest paying close attention to something, but it can also simply mean 'to read.' The 'read' sense, which is not especially new and was in fact included by Samuel Johnson in his 1755 dictionary, has drawn some criticism over the years for being too broad. Some commentators have recommended that peruse be reserved for reading with great care and attention to detail. But the fact remains that peruse is often used in situations where a simple 'read' definition could be easily substituted. It may suggest either an attentive read or a quick reading." (Bolding is not mine.)

So go figure. I will look it up in our new Samuel Johnson's Dictionary.

I did find these "Winning Words" on Carolyn's Corner site. Have you ever heard of "esquamulose?" I had a hard time finding its meaning, but finally found from Google that it means, "Lacking minute scales."

I am editing this with a link to the discussion on Carolyn's Corner.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Wed Dec 31st, 2003 at 14:24.]

But it should not. That it is thus inacurately used proves (if proof be needed) that there are those around who will never use a short word if they can find a sesquipedalian one.

According to Oxford, peruse means "to read or study, especially thoroughly or carefully". And I believe Oxford in preference to the eponymous Carolyn.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
According to Oxford, peruse means "to read or study, especially thoroughly or carefully".
Richard English

---

Now if you leave out the comma after "study" we do indeed exclude the simple definition of "to read" as we are saying "especially carefully" - that is with especial care.
However with the comma there it means that "to read" is a sufficient definition although "to read carefully" would be a better one.

See how important that punctuation stuff is ?

Why should I let the toad work
Squat on my life ?
Can't I use my wit as a pitchfork
And drive the brute off ?
Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

quote:

---

And I believe Oxford in preference to the eponymous Carolyn.

---

But, we all know that there have been some mistakes in all dictionaries. Otherwise, why doesn't the OED carry "epicaricacy?" It is a perfectly acceptable English word that had been cited in older dictionaries. The fact that Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary used "to read" as a definition for "peruse" helps validate, for me, that the "to read" definition got lost along the way (much like "epicaricacy"). I am sure that Erin McKean, and the other OED editors, will agree that the OED contributors aren't superhuman. We all make mistakes.

And, I don't really agree with all of you that simpler words are always better. After all, then why have several words for the same definition? Isn't one of the reasons many of us post here because of our love of various words? Reading and writing would become too boring were we not to have a few longer and obscure words that we love to use. Besides, "peruse" is hardly sesquipedalian; it only has 6 letters.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Wed Dec 31st, 2003 at 14:23.]

Quote "...But, we all know that there have been some mistakes in all dictionaries..."

I would hardly call the omission of a word a mistake, more a matter of editorial decision. After all, no dictionary, even the magisterial Complete Oxford, is 100% comprehensive.

Quote "...peruse" is hardly sesquipedalian; it only has 6 letters..." Now this is what we, in England, call a "joke"...! Check this concept with CJ!

Richard English

quote:

---

Now this is what we, in England, call a "joke"...! Check this concept with CJ!

---

Compliment accepted.

In return, I invite you to perambulate (11 letters) yourself to your favorite pub, order a bottle of British ale, and instruct the barkeep to put it on my tab.

How about a cogent discussion here? My dictionaries clearly define "sesquipedalian" as a "long" or "polysyllabic word." So...what is your perspective? I am open here.

Richard, please understand that I have just as much as respect for the OED as you do. However, I don't think any human is perfect, be it a cardiovascular surgeon, a car mechanic, or a knife salesman. Am I saying that the OED is fraught with error? NO! It is by far the most reliable, accurate, and comprehensive of all dictionaries, and, no, Tinman, I don't want to rewrite it. I just don't think there is perfection in what any human being does, no matter who he/she is. Therefore, it could be slightly possible that there is an error in the OED.

Quote "...In return, I invite you to perambulate (11 letters) yourself to your favorite pub, order a bottle of British ale, and instruct the barkeep to put it on my tab..."

I think I'd sooner perigrinate to a proximate hostelry, there to order a soupcon of my favourite draught libation...

Richard English

My point is simply that there is often no reason to use a long word rather than a short one and, indeed, as is the case here, the longer alternative is less accurate than the shorter.

So far as the OED is concerned, I do not claim infallibility for it. I simply was making the point that the omission of a word is not necessarily a fault; it is more likely to be a matter of editorial judgement.

With an estimated total of around 5 million English words (and the number's growing daily) no printed dictionary can possibly carry them all. What to leave out is often as difficult a decision as what to include and inevitably there will be those who disagree with the editor's decision.

And I speak as one who has written, and had published, a dictionary.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
How about a cogent discussion here?

---

My earlier comment about the comma may have been phrased flippantly but it was still a valid one.
The definition in the OED (if accurately quoted by RE) does NOT preclude the simple "to read" definition for peruse, it merely suggests that the definition "to read thoroughly" is a better one. The inclusion of the comma indicates that "to read" is also a valid definition.

Why should I let the toad work
Squat on my life ?
Can't I use my wit as a pitchfork
And drive the brute off ?
Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

quote:

---

My point is simply that there is often no reason to use a long word rather than a short one and, indeed, as is the case here, the longer alternative is less accurate than the shorter.

---

First, I just don't see how anyone say that 6 letters (2 syllables) is significantly different from 4 letters (1 syllable.) Now, I agree that "perambulate"...11 letters and 4 syllables....is sesquipedalian as compared to "walk." However, I don't see that "perambulate" vs. "walk" is similar to "peruse" vs. "read." Furthermore, "peruse" is commonly used while "perambulate" is not.

I also disagree that "the alternative is less accurate than the shorter." "Read" does not have the connotation of "skim." While not everyone agrees with me that "peruse" does, I think the evidence (the 1755 Samuel Johnson entry) shows that it does, and that was precisely how I meant to use it.

What I am wondering is, do some of you see "sesquipedalian" as something different from a "long, polysyllabic" word? For example, do you think it means an obscure word, no matter what the length is? That I would disagree with, just looking at the root for "sequipedalian."

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Wed Dec 31st, 2003 at 8:41.]

Quote "...First, I just don't see how anyone say that 6 letters (2 syllables) is significantly different from 4 letters (1 syllable.)..."

But that is, or was supposed to be, the joke (but it was obviously not a good one).

My sentence, "...That it is thus inacurately used proves (if proof be needed) that there are those around who will never use a short word if they can find a sesquipedalian one..." is itself a misuse of the long word "sesquipedalian" and thus a demonstration of the desire of some to use long (and inaccurate) words rather than short and accurate ones.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
It [the OED] is by far the most reliable, accurate, and comprehensive of all dictionaries, and, no, Tinman, I don't want to rewrite it.

---

Pity. C J and Shufitz could have used the help.

Tinman

Pity. C J and Shufitz could have used the help.
______________________________________________

ROFLMAO! Now, wasn't there a Saint Egregious, the patron saint of distinguished people?

While I couldn't find a St. Egregious, I did find a Belgian beer, named "Charlie Gow's St. Egregious Tripel!"

Ah, but Richard, you misunderstand my point. I fully agree we have "words that are precise, words that are vague (or that can have many meanings) and 'throw' is one of the vague ones. To 'throw' can mean all sorts of actions. To throw a ball, a pot or a fit." But I am talking about the one meaning having to do with a ball, and asking whether the dictionaries state that meaning with precise accuracy.

Contrast "putting" a shot with the separate motion I described above; let's invent the term "strolning" refer to the latter in this post. If the words "throw," (in this sense) "fling," and "hurl" all include both putting and "strolning," there is no separate word to use for the much more common motion of strolning. That would be an impoverishment of the language and its ability to make careful distinctions.

Perhaps that's how the language is -- but it's also possible the dictionary's definition-writer didn't think carefully about these distinctions. If you check, you'll find that the various dictionaries are inconsistent in these fine points of defining this aspect of "throw". Consider their definitions as they pertain to four separate motions: 1) "strolning"; 2) putting a shot; 3) propelling an object by slapping or striking it with the hand, as a vollyball; and 4) propelling a stone by whirling it in a sling, as David did to Goliath.

• AHD's definition (propelling "by a motion of the arm or hand") would encompass ##1, 2, 3 and 4. (Cambridge is similar.)
• Wordnet's definition includes only #1, as it refers to a motion of the arm "and wrist."
• Webster's (1996) requires "a certain whiring motion" of the arm. It thus includes ##1 and 4, but not #2 (putting). As to #3, it excludes the way a setter hits a volleyballl, but includes the way a server or spiker hits it.
  
• Webster's (1996) confuses the matter when it defines "throw (noun)" to require propelling "from the hand or an engine". This would exclude ##3 and 4 entirely, for in those cases the object is never held in the hand.
• Webster further confuses in a different edition (Collegiate?),which allows any "forward" motion of the hand and arm – but then, in discussing synonyms, says that "THROW is general and interchangeable with the other terms but may specifically imply a distinctive motion with bent arm." The former encompass ## 1, 2, 3 and 4; the latter encompasses #1 only.

Perhaps the best way of seeing that the broad definition (as in AHD) is erroneous is to note that one would never say a volleyball player "throws" the ball; rather, he "hits" it.

My point? Dictionaries are written by human beings, and are subject to human error. A definition can be overbroad because its author didn't consider careful distinctions. The definition should be respected, but it shouldn't be taken as holy writ.

PS: On the peruse/read controversy, it's not so much that "peruse" is sesquipedal as that it's latinate. The pretensious souls who reach for the sesquipedal also reach for the latinate.

There's nary a bronco that cain't be rode and there's nary a cowpoke that cain't be throwed.

comment from the corral
_____________________________________________

Huh? I thought Will Rogers was from Oklahoma, not Highwalleye

I read today (although I haven't checked the quotation for accuracy) that the OED carries 14,070 different definitions for the 500 most-used words. That's an average of 28 separate definitions for each word.

I would imagine that this statistic includes "sub-meanings" as well as truly different meanings.

Richard English

From Arnie:

quote:

---

I have perused your esteemed communication of December 29th...

---

And from Richard:

quote:

---

I think I'd sooner perigrinate to a proximate hostelry, there to order a soupcon of my favourite draught libation...

---

and CJ's use of "perambulate," instead of "walk," well, I agree that they are what we have previously called flowery language. I agree that writing or talking like this is pretentious. Yet, I think we all have a love of words here, or we wouldn't be here. Therefore, I don't mind the use of a sesquipedalian or Latinate word now and then. Whether or not "peruse" is one of those is a matter of opinion.

As for "throw," Shufitz makes a good point. Especially since the OED has so many sub-definitions, perhaps it should include the correct definition for "throwing" a ball. After all, everyone, no matter what culture or country he/she is from, will understand that definition.

I was perusing the "Unusual Words" site that I had posted in Links for Linguaphiles, and I found that there is an exetension for "sesquipedalian;" it is hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian. Now that's pretentious!

In response to my "comment from the corral,

quote:

---

Huh? I thought Will Rogers was from Oklahoma, not Highwalleye

---

A lot of folks still quote the wise sayings of that Cherokee Indian, Asa, and you're right. He came from them Oklahoma hills.

I came across this lovely phrase today: "inkhorn words." Would this be the term for these sorts of words that we've been talking about (i.e. not really sesquipedalian, but too "flowery" for everyday use.)?

Michael Quinion has a good article about inkhorn words on his World Wide Words site.

He describes them as:

quote:

---

... a term of gentlemanly abuse, referring to words which were being used by scholarly writers but which were unknown or uncommon in ordinary speech.

---

Wow. I seem to have missed so much while Wordcraft has been too slow to use.

I have only ever understood peruse to mean read. Any qualification of the word always seems to come with an adverb doesn't it? It is one of the words, like commence for start and facilitate for do, that people use to sound clever.

Sesquipedalian was my favourite word on the favourite word thread, so imagine my delight when I saw it being used so perfectly to describe peruse - adding extra syllables and letters unnecessarily seems eminently sesquipedalian to me.

Good to see you back, Graham! So, you agree that "peruse" is "sesquipedalian." I must be taking the latter word too literally then, given that I am a literalist and all!

Ah but to be a literalist, you would either need very large writing indeed or a knowledge of poetry to know whether a long word is literally a foot and a half long. It can only be a word to use metaphorically.

For Valentine's Day it seems appropriate to post this, as evidence referring back to CJ's post of Dec. 26 and Bob's post immediately following:

An amorous M.A.
Said of Cupid, the C.D.,
"By their prodigal use,
He is, I dedude,
The John Jacob A.H."

Sorry, shufitz, but even after looking at CJ's and Bob's posts, I didn't understand a word of that.

M.A. = Master of Arts
C.D. = Caster of Darts
A.H. = Astor of Hearts

Ah! Now I get it! Very clever!

These are probably the kinds of Limericks I appreciate most. Here's a topical example that I have just created:

On Valentine's morning my Mrs.
Said "Why don't you look at what Thrs.
"I bought in a sale
This I.P.A.
- That must surely be worth a few Krs."

I'll post the meanings of the abbreviations if anyone's really stuck.

Richard English