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.

Nobility

I first began tracing my ancestry more than thirty years ago. Oral family history spoke of an ancestor being 'the Honourable' and I began a long search.

It turned out to be half right but did make me wonder just where these titles came from.

Earl is possibly the most likely to be known, this being of Saxon or Old English origins where eorl originally coiuld be used to mean 'brave man, warrior, leader, chief' and contracted with the peasant or churl.

Baron came to English from Old French, and ultimately from Latin baro or simply 'man'. Note the Franks used the same word to mean 'freeman', which may well have helped develop the idea of a higher ranking. Clearly both 'baronet' and 'baroness' are derivations.

Count is another coming to English from Old French. Here conte is from the Latin comitem meaning 'companion, attendant', and used as the title for a provincial governor. The feminine 'coountess' is first seen in the middle of the 12th century.

Duke, once again, came from Old French where duc and the earlier Latin dux both meant 'leader'. All these terms can be traced back to Proto-Indo-European deuk meaning 'to lead'. Interestingly the rank od duke, or indeed duchess, is unrecorded before the end of the 12th century.

Lord comes from Old English hlaford 'master of the house' and is itself from the earlier Old English hlafweard, quite literally 'one who guards the loaves'. This dovetails quite nicely with the origins of 'lady' or hlafaeta meaning 'bread kneader'.

Marquis, and therefore marchioness, is from Old French marchis, quite literally 'ruler of a border area' and taken from Old French marche and Latin marca both meaning 'frontier'.

Viscount and viscountess can be traced to Old French visconte and ultimately from the Latin vice 'deputy' and comes 'nobleman'.

Dame is from Old French dame, 'lady, mistress, wife' and genrally referring to 'the woman of the house' as this comes from the Latin domus 'house'. Both Spanish and Portuguese 'don' share the same origin.

Hidalgo is unrecorded before 1590, this thought to be a shortened form of filho de algo or 'son of someone'. Late Iberian usage probably points to an Arabic origin of ibn nas or 'son of the people' which was used as an honorary title.

Knight came from Old English cniht meaning 'boy, youth, servant, attendant'. Not until the Normans arrived did it become any sort of title or standing.

Noble is a collective term first seen at the end of the 12th century. Coming to English from Old French noble and Latin nobilis, it simply means 'of high birth' just as it does in English today. Interestingly this can be traced to Proto-Indo-European gno 'to know' and used in the sense of 'well known'.

Seneschal is an Old French term meaning 'steward, majordomo' in its simplest terms. Despite coming to English from French, the term is Proto-Germanic where sini-skalk 'senior servant' is related to modern words such as 'senile' and 'marshal'.

Squire may not have been the highest of ranks but proved to be the first step on the ladder for many. This comes from Old French esquier or 'shield carrier' and most often seen today in the form of address 'esquire'.

Honourable was the one which started all this and is recorded in English from the end of the 13th century. Clearly a word used as an adjective and derived from 'honour', the latter coming from Old French onor, which is why we do not pronounce the 'h', and from Latin honorem 'dignity, reputation'.