That was not what I meant. (E)

Meanings of words don't change as much as usage, hence the reason the following list of words have apparently changed in meaning.

Eccentric may be used to mean 'strange, unusual' today, but began meaning 'not concentric', as in overlapping circles with different centres.

Emus are fast-running flightless birds from Australia, a continent famously explored by Captain James Cook from 1770. So how come the 'emu' is recorded over a century earlier? The answer is in the name being applied to other large flightless birds - in 1653 it was the cassowary and in the first part of the eighteenth century applied to the rhea.

Encroach may man 'trespass' today, but from the fourteenth century meant 'seize unlawfully',

Engine has but one use today, be it steam, petrol, electrical, etc, but historically used to mean 'plot, snare'.

Engross or occupy, earlier was used to mean 'buy wholesale'.

Entail or 'involve' today, but from the fourteenth century it was used as a legal term 'to settle an estate for the benefit of the heirs alone'.

Enthral may mean 'captivate' today, but three or four centuries ago was used in the sense of 'capture, hold in slavery'.

Entrepreneurs are associated with business undertakings today, but historically (the word came to English from the French for 'undertaker') it was used to describe an entertainment or musical undertaking.

Envisage, today a mental image, comes from the French and translates as 'look in the face', which is why it started as 'look straight at' in English.

Epicure, a reference to the finer things when wining and dining today, was first used in English in the sixteenth century to describe a 'womaniser' or 'glutton', depending on the context.

Equator, first used in the seventeenth century, then described the great circle around the heavens, not the earth. The image deminstrates this perfectly.

Excursion has come to refer to a journey for pleasure, but started out in English meaning 'escape'.

Exhibition is an odd word, which has come to mean a public showing, but first used in English to mean 'maintenance, allowance' and in the financial sense.

Expletive or swear word first came to English meaning 'filled out'.

Explode surely can't mean anything but 'detonate', but when it first appeared in English it was used to mean 'reject'.

Extinct came from Latin and meant 'to quench' before being used in the modern sense of 'died out'.

Extravagant, today used to mean 'overly proper', came from the Latin and was initially used to mean 'wandering about'.

Define a Natural Landscape

All this walking research has made me think about the environmentalists and their continued calls to preserve our landscape and the habitats of species under threat. Question is what landscape do they want preserved?

The South Downs are man-made, woodland felled for agriculture would soon return were it not for grazing and the plough. The wilds of Dartmoor was also once covered by woodland, the odd original isolated patch is still found but will never return to the remaining areas. Do the environmentalists want the modern idea of the South Downs and/or Dartmoor retained - or should we get rid of the heathlands, grassy slopes and the wild flowers in favour of deciduous woodland?

What about the animals? The hog is increasing in numbers in many parts of the country, beaver are being introduced into small controlled areas of Scotland. Yet while some laud the return of these mammals there are as many voices against. Birds such as the osprey, kite and peregrine falcon have famously been protected and numbers are increasing. The greater mouse-eared bat was declared extinct in 1990, I cannot see any dissenting voices to the reintroduction of these flying mammals. Rare species of ant have been monitored for seventeen years on the sandy heathlands of Scotland - can't see a mass outcry if year eighteen sees none to count. But what about the bear, exterminated by man in the eleventh century, or the wolf officially gone by 1740. Want to see those reintroduced to Britain? And how can reintroducing animals to 'specially selected areas only' be considered natural? Surely this is simply an open plan zoo?

So I hear how every species should have its own little niche where the species is protected. But isn't that one of the major complaints of environmentalists, that habitat is increasingly fragmented and small islands for this beetle, that bird, or the other flower don't allow them to spread sufficiently to widen the gene pool and thus isolating populations?

And where do we stop? Even if we limit the timescale to species which suffered through human influence we must go back to the end of the last Ice Age when humans returned in numbers to settle permanently in Britain. The idea of returning mammoth, Irish elk and other large herbivores is difficult enough. However to bring back the habitat of these grazers would involve filling in much of the North Sea to rejoin the land bridge with continental Europe.

Perhaps these campaigners should take the lead and offer themselves up as habitats for the human flea which has suffered from a lack of habitat in our comparatively clinically clean modern homes.

I ask again, just what is 'natural'?