> How commonly must the definition be used before it becomes correct?
>
> How does one distinguish between 'evolution' and 'corruption' in the changing meanings of words?

That's a huge area of linguistics that I'm not qualified to answer definitively. But words do not get created by careless use, and in many cases such carelessness destroys some truly wonderful words. My research on the word seems to indicate that "enormity," while sadly approaching extinction, is not so far gone that it will not evoke disdain from a great deal of literate writers and speakers (and linguists, too) who encounter it misused. My personal, non-linguist opinion is that this prevalent disdain from educated persons indicates (and probably dictates) that its "enormousness" definition is invalid and merely a common misperception by those unaware.

As far as Mirriam-Webster's quotations are concerned, it's shockingly unconvincing. Four or five quotes out of the hundreds of millions (a wild guess) of times the word has been used in the last century means nothing. An impressive author or two is credited with the quotations, but hey, I could show how "they" could be used as a singular pronoun just by taking a dozen or so selected quotations from the writings of Jane Austen.

> Well, without this additional explanation, I'm afraid it won't work. How about a section in the Trivia Stampede answer box for extra information?

*shrug* Right now the use of the "reference" field depends on the category, not the question. But I've been dissatisfied with that since before I opened the site and may change it if I get perturbed enough. For now, I'm going to leave it.