Enormity -- The Size, er, Wickedness of the Problem

I'm as ignorant as George Bush. George H. W. Bush, that is (the first one). I learned this from Bill Bryson, author of one of the funniest books I've ever read (A Walk in the Woods) and of The Mother Tongue, one word-man's study of how the English language got the way it is. According to Bryson, "The day after he was elected president in 1988, George Bush told a television reporter he couldn't believe the enormity of what had happened. Had President-elect Bush known that the primary meaning of enormity is wickedness or evilness, he would doubtless have selected a more apt term."

Ok, maybe you knew this, but apparently I've been coerced naively into the camp of usage anarchists who have contributed to the shocking degradation of this term into meaning "of great size; immensity." I shall begin acts of penance forthwith.

Seriously, even people who savor words can be ignorant of their historic meanings. I avoid using the adjective true because one of the points of Bryson's book is there isn't a capital T true when it comes to English, and that's a good thing; that fluidity has contributed to the English language's richness, which is what this blog celebrates.

Peeking into the OED, I find the entry for enormity to read: "1. Divergence from a normal standard or type; abnormality, irregularity. Obs. or arch. [Note: these abbreviations signify "obsolete" and "archaic," respectively.] 2. Deviation from moral or legal rectitude. In legal use influenced by enormous 3. Extreme or monstrous wickedness. 2.b. A breach of law or morality; a transgression, crime; in later use, a gross and monstrous offence. 3. Excess in magnitude; hugeness, vastness. Obs.: recent examples might perhaps be found, but the use is now regarded as incorrect."

Now regarded as incorrect? Really? According to whom? Oh, wait, here's what our little ol' American Heritage College Dictionary has to say about enormity: "1. The quality of passing all moral bounds; excessive wickedness or outrageousness. 2. A monstrous offense or evil; an outrage. 3. Usage Problem. Great size; immensity. Usage Note: Enormity is frequently used to refer simply to the property of being enormous, but many would prefer that enormity be reserved for a property that evokes a negative moral judgment. Fifty-nine percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of enormity in the sentence At that point the engineers sat down to design an entirely new viaduct, apparently undaunted by the enormity of their task."

Oh, the "Usage Panel." Well then, of course, I any every other malingerer stands corrected in the face that that 59% of whoever the "Usage Panel" is. Especially when both the OED and American Heritage immediately follow up their definitions of enormity with their definitions for enormous.

OED says: "1. Deviating from ordinary rule or type; abnormal, unusual, extraordinary, unfettered by rules; hence, mostly in bad sense, strikingly irregular, monstrous, shocking. Obs. [Remember, that abbreviation stands for "obsolete"] 2. Of persons and their actions: Departing from the rule of right, disorderly. Of a state of things: Disordered, irregular. Hence, excessively wicked, outrageous. Obs. 3. Excessive or ordinary in size, magnitude, or intensity; huge, vast, immense." Note that there's no Obs. after that third definition.

American Heritage says of enormous: "1. Very great in size, extent, number, or degree. 2. Archaic. Very wicked; heinous.

Makes sense to you, right?

My point is not simply to blow a razzberry at fuddy-duddy "Usage Panels" trying to rigidly preserve definitions in the face of the great fluidity that has characterized English through centuries of conquest, accretion, invention, and yes, sometimes sheer laziness. It's to underscore that there is going to be evolution because such evolution is natural and it engenders variety both in biology, which makes us who/what we are, and in language, which enables us to express ourselves. In a case like enormity, where a closely related term like enormous has an accepted definition that's related to size and the term's historic meanings are acknowledged to be archaic if not altogether obsolete, I think it's kind of silly to try to stubbornly cling to a definition that's fading without some good case for preserving the original definition. Will a majority of readers/listeners today misunderstand that sentence about engineers and viaducts? No. The whole point of language -- to communicate ideas -- is achieved by the use of enormity in this context for the great majority, if not all, of the audience.

Which is not to say, let's throw up our hands and toss all usage rules out the window, but rather to be judicious and open to natural change at the same time. Bryson wrote: "One of the undoubted virtues of English is that it is a fluid and democratic language in which meanings shift and change in response to the pressures of common usage rather than the dictates of committees. It is a natural process that has been going on for centuries. To interfere with that process is arguably both arrogant and futile, since clearly the weight of usage will push new meanings into currency no matter how many authorities hurl themselves into the path of change.

"But at the same time, it seems to me, there is a case for resisting change -- at least slapdash change. Even the most liberal descriptivist would accept that there must be some conventions of usage. We must agree to spell cat c-a-t and not e-l-e-p-h-a-n-t, and we must agree that by that word we mean a small furry quadruped that goes meow and sits comfortably on one's lap [not my cat, but hey] and not a large lumbering beast that grows tusks and is exceedingly difficult to housebreak. In precisely the same way, clarity is generally better served if we agree to observe a distinction between imply and infer, forego and forgo, fortuitous and fortunate, uninterested and disinterested, and many others. As John Ciardi observed, resistance may in the end prove futile, but at least it tests the changes and makes them prove their worth."