> Words mean what the majority of people in that country or region believe they mean. REGARDLESS of what it says in a dictionary which may have been printed twenty years ago, two years ago, or even yesterday. Anything else is etymology, not correct usage.

And yet... when the meaning of words or phrases switches to the point where they're simply silly to use, should we just accept that? The phrase "I could care less" to indicate that the speaker doesn't care simply doesn't make any sense. I don't care how many people use the phrase that way. If you use words to describe the opposite of what you mean, you're wrong.

What about words whose meaning has become sort of diluted to the point where the word is less useful? For instance, the word "atheist" is commonly used to describe somebody who is not religious. The word means somebody who is not a theist, i.e. does not believe in a god. It is quite possible to be religious without believing in a god, but I'd wager most people wouldn't describe Buddhists as being atheists.

When a very nice, specific word becomes diluted into a more general term, it bothers me. The word "dilemma" is a great word to describe a very specific situation. Its root means roughly choosing between two things, but its English meaning for some time carried the connotation of choosing between two things, both of which are bad. This is a great word. In its common usage, though, dilemma is taken to mean "problem." This is bad, since we already have a word for problem and are now left without a word that carries the same precision dilemma did. I will correct people (at least people with whom I'm on relatively friendly terms; I'm not going to correct somebody I've just met) who misuse these words, even if common usage says it's okay. Why? Because as a person who has a great need for saying things with precision, I have a vested interest in keeping the language as precise as possible.

There are certain other commonly misused words that I'm willing to accept the common usage for, but still prefer the actual meaning. When somebody uses the word "criteria" as a singular noun ("What was your criteria for judging that?") I cringe but accept it. Yeah, we're creating another weird pluralization problem within the language, but it's already rife with it. And, hey, I don't use "data" only as a plural, so perhaps I shouldn't talk.

As for the "geek" issue, I really have to agree with Eric. For one, we have little use for keeping around the old meaning of the word (and "carnival geek" is practically as concise as the original) while the new definition is firmly ingrained in common culture. Of course, exactly what the meaning *is* isn't clear. I'd like the word more if it had a more specific connotation, but for now it serves as a very vague term.

Stephen

P.S. Since "geek" is such a vague word, I find trying to differentiate between it and a word like "nerd" to be an exercise in futility. Certainly creating any hierarchy of which word is more severe is impossible. You generally can't do that with any terms in English, anyway. Which is worse: being called a moron or an idiot? Insults and slang in particular tend to be vague.

P.P.S. I had some great examples of terms whose severity is unclear, but they were all profane. Gosh darn your filter Sam! This was important language commentary!