Words of disputed usage

I found a list of disputed words on Wikipedia and thought it might be an interesting exercise to look at this through my etymological eyes. Note this will help the would-be writer, as some editors will be irked if authors use what they perceive as a word in the wrong sense. Best to steer clear, I say. I opted for an alphabetical list as much as I could.

Aggravate is used to mean 'to make worse' and also 'to annoy', but the latter usage is disputed by many. Early usage of this word, from the 16th century, would mean 'to burden, make heavy' and this comes from the Proto-Indo-European root gwere 'heavy'. This would tend to support the idea that it should only be used in the sense 'to make worse'.

Barbaric is rarely used in a positive sense, and yet it really only describes those showing attributes of a barbarian culture. Historically the word would be applied to all who were not from the classical cultures of Rome or Greece, said to be imitative of the unintelligible gabble of foreigners. (It's all Greek to me.)

Contact has become used as a synonym for 'touch', not only in the physical sense but also in the communication sense. As the communication is inevitably remote - text, telephone, email, letter, etc - it hardly involves touching and some still maintain it is wrong. Coming to English from Latin contactus 'a touching', it is ultimately from Proto-Indo-European tag 'to touch, handle'. If this idea of physical contact is the only true sense, then we will all have to abandon making eye contact.

Different in the United Kingdom is given as 'different to', it being likened to the opposite 'similar to'. In America it is 'different from' as in 'to differ from' and 'other than'. This is seen in Latin differentem 'to set apart' and Proto-Indo-European bher 'to carry'. Hence, etymology here is of no help whatsoever.

Enormity is today used to describe great size, but only from around 1800. Prior to that, and also after, the word meant 'transgression, crime' and likely only took on the other meaning because it was seen as related to the word 'enormous'.

Farther or further? Many still adhere to the idea that 'farther' should only be used in terms of distance or proximity, while 'further' should be used in terms of time. Etymologically speaking this distance/time argument is absolutely correct in both cases.

Gender is today used as a synonym for 'sex', yet for most of its existence it was solely an expression used in connection with grammar. It comes, as does 'gene' and 'generation', ultimately from Proto-Indo-European gene meaning 'birth, beget'.

Hopefully should only be used in the sense of expressing confidence, according to some. While others will also use it as a replacement for 'frankly' or 'unfortunately'. The etymologist tends to agree with the former idea, and many writers and editors will change the word when used in the other sense.

Ironic is nearly always used to refer to that which is seen as coincidental, improbable, or unfortunate. This is wrong, for irony describes the incongruity between what is expected and what happens. The etymologist will tell you 'irony' comes from Proto-Indo-European wer-yo 'to speak', which would somewhat support what is seen as the correct usage.

Less should not be used as a synonym for 'fewer', is the argument. The etymologist will tell you it comes from Proto-Indo-European leis 'small', and thus should be used to refer to size and not number - at least historically it should.

Meet is 'to come together', and thus the increasingly common 'to meet with' is poor grammar. The Proto-Indo-European root of mod or 'assemble' would agree.

Nauseous should only be used to mean 'causing nausea' and not the feeling of nausea. Intriguing to note the Proto-Indo-European root nau means 'boat' and, while clearly related to 'nautical', has never been used solely to refer to seasickness.

Overly is seen as an American influence, and is completely pointless as 'over' can be used instead.

People is now seen as the norm, although historically 'persons' was preferred. 'Persons' has been seen as a known number, perhaps not accurately but generally, while 'people' refers to an indeterminate number and replaced 'folk' in English around the 14th century.

Raise or rear children? Rear is correct, while 'raise' should perhaps only be used in the sense of 'lifting'.

Seek has always been used to mean 'look for', but has latterly been used to mean 'try, want' and some frown upon what they perceive as a new meaning. As the Proto-Indo-European root sag-yo meant 'to track down, to seek out', the former seems to be the correct usage.

Than - the argument is simply is it a preposition or a conjunction? The OED has it as a conjunction, but that is not the end of the story, for the word has only been around since 1700, prior to that it was 'then', which probably explains the confusion as to the modern usage.

Urgent as in 'urgently required' is the norm, it comes from Proto-Indo-European wreg meaning 'to follow a track' and is first seen on our shores in Old English wrecan 'drive, hunt, pursue'. This early use has almost come back in the recent use of 'urgent' meaning 'happening very soon'.

Whose, it is argued, should only be used in connection with a person or persons. However, the word has taken on the possessive form of 'which', something English had lacked. For some, and that includes me, sentences like "That's the car whose alarm keeps waking us up at night" is abysmal grammar, but it does seem it is here to stay.

Whilst I have often said the earlier form is 'correct', I fully accept that usage changes and the examples given are (largely) seen as in transit. One day the old meaning may well be lost and the new the accepted truth.