I'm surprised that you had to look up "bowdlerize." I thought the word was pretty common. However, I am beginning to suspect I'm wrong (shocking, isn't?). Not too long ago I was reading a column written by someone with the AP. He/she used the term to mean "add dirty parts in." I yelled, "Dunce!" aloud...until I remembered what that word originally meant.

Elizabeth | June 10, 2007 4:07 PM

Elizabeth, the definition of "bowdlerize" surprized me, especially since I worked in publishing and its origin comes from the name of an editor (Thomas Bowdler) who had bowdlerized Shakespeare. If it had been something like "debawdilize" (I just made this word up.), I could have figured out the meaning based on root clues.

Although I make plenty of mistakes of my own, I notice lots of word misuse in the media. Around Valentine's Day, "cupidity" pops up everywhere. It might be Cupid's busy season, but having a cupidinous lover doesn't fill my head with thoughts of romance. It makes me think of stalking.

marydell | June 11, 2007 12:35 PM

"Fulsome" is another word that is frequently misused--oftentimes with amusing results. I was editing a book that described a lover's bosom as "fulsome."

What are your thoughts on the phrase: "You can't have you cake and eat it too"?

Elizabeth | June 11, 2007 3:01 PM

When was the last time I used "fiduciary"? I just don't know. Anyways, I think your blog is pretty awesome. I'd be glad to offer you one of my awesome, super soft Geekfitters.com shirts in exchange for a link.

Best,
Chris Geek

Chris | June 11, 2007 8:35 PM

Elizabeth, that's one of those phrases which makes no sense. If you have cake, why can't you eat it? Is it poisoned? Another one I find annoying is: "I could care less." Although it's a verbal shortening of "I couldn't care less" and everyone knows what it means, it's confusing. I know I could always care less about something I don't care much about.

Chris, I have a few relatives who work in finance, so "fiduciary" comes up fairly often at my house. Thanks for stopping by. Linking from BookBlog will not happen since I already have plenty of shirts, so I've taken the spam bit out of your comment.

marydell | June 13, 2007 8:46 AM

Re: Having cake

My feelings exactly! You can have your cake--on the plate in front of you--and eat it, too--yum! What you can't do is eat your cake and then have it, too. (Unless you are bulemic...) It's the misquote that's all too common these days that makes no sense.

I think the problem of these misquote/inaccurate definitions stems from the fact that people are simply too lazy to think critically about what they are saying. And, furthermore, I surmise that it is a lack of this critical thinking that is the catalyst for book reviewers feeling threatened by book bloggers. Heaven forfend that there be more than one opinion/interpretation of the book! People mid actually have to think and defend and debate their arguments!

May I use this post as a twofer and submit it as my humble request for membership?

Elizabeth | June 13, 2007 4:27 PM

Oh, yes, people are lazy and getting lazier by the minute. On the bright side, at least language is a living, adaptive organism. Communicating with others would be an incredibly boring pursuit if everyone always followed the rules.

At last night's book review panel, John Freeman of the NBCC stated that there isn't any war going on between critics and bloggers. Maybe there isn't, but it does seem like many critics have complained that we threaten them. Part of the problem, I think, is how out of touch print media is. Today's kids have had computers in their homes since birth. They're used to instantaneous, searchable, bookmarkable, and (increasingly) annotatable online content. Why would they be interested in reading a hard-copy newspaper?

Of course you may join! But, honestly, there's no joining necessary since this is likely the lowest pressure book club on the planet. All you do is read the selected book, drop by during discussion week, and leave a comment. Ta da! You're a member.

marydell | June 14, 2007 12:13 PM

But yet...cancer lives and grows and perverts and kills as it does. So this philosophy of "words mean whatever I say they mean" has the potential to kill off communication rather than enhance it. I aver there must be agreed upon and accepted rules so that people can understand each other. My definition of "tweleve" should match your definition of "twelve" or else we will end up in a situation where Jennifer Aniston asks for tweleve lemons, and Vince Vaughan brings home three. Or, more seriously, a public speaker is lambasted and ostracized for using the word "niggardly"--dispite the fact that the innocent word means stingy and is wholly unrelated to the infamous N-word. True story.

Elizabeth | June 14, 2007 4:49 PM