(no subject)

[deckardcanine]

I continue to learn more about the language I know best. Today Sleepy John faulted me for writing "cut the muster" instead of "cut the mustard." Like many before me, I thought that the former predated the latter, seeing as its literal meaning is more obscure. Instead, it appears to be an accidental mix of "cut the mustard" and "pass muster," a term with military origins.

More surprising to me is a recent long discussion on Cute Overload about the word "nauseous." Purists reserve it for the sense of "nauseating." Merriam-Webster also accepts it as a substitute for "nauseated," but since the same source grudgingly accepts "flaunt" for "flout," not everyone respects the decision.

The thing is, I have always seen or heard it to mean "nauseated," never "nauseating." Not that I can recall all that many instances of "nauseous" offhand, but still. It's not really a new thing either: The last line in Sleeper (1973) goes, "Sex and death -- two things that come once in a lifetime. But at least after death you're not nauseous." The traditional meaning sure wouldn't make sense in that context, and the filmmakers counted on audiences to understand.

As copy editors go, I think I'm not much of a fogy.

Comments

[octan.livejournal.com]

Kind of like "begs the question." I'm not sure I even know what the "correct" meaning is, and I've certainly never heard anyone use it that way.

I think if the original meaning of a word or phrase ever gets to be so rare that the people who know that meaning spend more time correcting people than actually using it, the new meaning should become the correct one by default. See also: "data" as a plural noun as opposed to... whatever the grammatical term for nouns like "milk" or "science" is.

[deckardcanine.livejournal.com]

I thought the answer was "collective noun," but that turns out to be reserved for words like "group." The correct term, which I never learned in school, is "mass noun."