> > That sounds a lot like the word "peruse," which in theory means, or at least, used to mean, "to study attentively," but by common usage means "to examine cursorily."
>
> No it doesn't! No! No! No! No dictionary I know has that definition at all. It's not a legitimate meaning for the word; it's just a common misunderstanding by people who don't know any better. (Actually I even disagree that it means "examine cursorily" by common usage -- that may be a common mistake, but, thank heaven, I do think it's actually still more common to see the word used correctly.)

*looks at Sam with amazement* Wow... that's quite a passionate response. I'm impressed... but not convinced.

Aren't languages, or at least, living languages, defined in terms of how they're used? I mean to say, when the dictionaries are compiled, they aren't CREATING the language, just observing it. It's true that traditionally the word "peruse" means to study, but the way that the word is used by many people, fairly often, is to skim. Whether it's a mistake of ignorance or not, it IS what is meant when the people use the word in that sense. Surely historical linguists (lingual-historians?) could point out many words of which the previous (now archaic, and not even mentioned in ANY dictionaries) meaning conflicts with the current definition.

Maybe the (alleged) second meaning isn't the MOST common usage, but it is quite common, whether this is regrettable or not. I think that the meaning's popularity grants it legitimacy. I suggest that if one person misuses a word, that person is wrong, but if (big number: say 50 million) people misuse it, the dictionaries are wrong.

But then, maybe I just like being able to say "I perused my reading assignment" to enjoy the ambiguity :-)


Kw "Loves the English language, it's so squishy" irq