I read this in a column today and thought the author used the wrong word:

"...because it is hard for anyone to apprehend the sheer felicity of one's own time until it's gone."

I'd have used comprehend. Yet, when I look up apprehend one meaning is, "to grasp the meaning of; understand, esp. intuitively; perceive." The meaning of comprehend is "to understand the nature or meaning of; grasp with the mind; perceive."

I don't see the difference in the definitions. Is there? Did he use it correctly?

Their meanings overlap. But apprehend also means "arrest; become aware of" and comprehend does not. And comprehend also means "include" and apprehend does not.

I noticed something weird when I looked it up in the OED. The earliest meanings in the OED are

comprehend: "To lay hold of, to seize, to grasp; to ‘catch’, entrap."

apprehend: To lay hold upon, seize, with hands, teeth, etc. Also said of fire, and fig. of trembling, fear, etc.

They seem pretty similar. But weirdly, under "comprehend", the OED cites Shakespeare with the note

quote:

b. As an illiterate blunder for APPREHEND.

1599 SHAKES. Much Ado III. iii. 25 You shall comprehend all vagrom men. Ibid. III. v. 50 Our watch sir haue indeede comprehended two aspitious persons.

This seems a bit a lot unfair. Shakespeare's using the word in the approved sense.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

I have seen "apprehend" used in its sense of understanding or comprehending, but not very often. It feels older to me, which your OED defs have shown it is not!

The word I'd trip over here is "aspitious."

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
The word I'd trip over here is "aspitious."

Yeah... modern versions have "aspicious", which doesn't help.