I had a conversation recently with a colleague, and we were discussing, among other things, language and the "rules" of grammar. We both agreed that with the English language, it's okay to break and stray from many of the "rules."
There are some grammar rules I abide by and some I don't. Linguistically speaking, I am, after all, a prescriptivist - not a descriptivist. My colleague chuckled when I used the word "egregious" to describe certain grammar no-no's that I will not tolerate.
From this colleague, I learned that a lot of proofreaders and copyeditors use the word, "egregious." Never knew that before. It's a word that was frequently used in my previous life as a paralegal. Lots of things done to lots of people were egregious. Lots of actions and statement were egregious.
Based on my legal experience, I thought "egregious" always had a negative implication. But here, my darlings, is the Merriam-Webster definition:
1archaic : distinguished2: conspicuous ; especially : conspicuously bad : flagrant <egregious errors> <egregious padding of the evidence — Christopher Hitchens>
While "egregious" has come to mean "conspicuously bad," in the past, the word also has been known to mean "distinguished" and "conspicuous." I wonder how such a good and innocent word got such a bad reputation.
Interesting how words evolve. Yes?
