> Don't even get me started on "nauseous." The correct meaning is "to make people sick," *not* "to feel ill."

Coincidentally, I only just heard of this belief a week or two ago, when I read the entry for "nauseous" in the aforementioned "Highly Selective Dictionary For the Extraordinarily Literate," which is one of the references I referred to concerning the word "enormity."

He lists two definitions for the word: "causing nausea" and "experiencing nausea." His comments follow. (Please excuse the gruffness of his substantiation.)

"Some writers and editors insist stubbornly that 'nauseous' should not be used in the second sense, 'experiencing nausea.' Instead of 'I feel nauseous,' they prefer to write 'I feel nauseated.' Unfortunately for writers and editors so inclined, 'nauseous' has been used in senses 1 and 2 for at least four centuries. Moreover, most people today use 'nauseous' exclusively in sense 2, never thinking for a moment of speaking about nauseous medicines or nauseous anything else. So, whenever you feel sick to your stomach, ignore the advice of nauseating, self-proclaimed experts and express your feeling of nausea any way you wish. But first take something to restore you to good health."

Yours isn't the only language peeve he argues against. I was similarly adamant about the word "transpire," which I understood to mean "of information, to leak out, to become known" and NOT "to happen" as it is frequently used to mean. But Ehrlich argues in favor of both definitions, saying that the "to happen" definition has been used for "at least two centuries." Usually Ehrlich is on the other side of the fence on these types of issues (such as being quite against using "enormity" as "immensity"), but not in these two cases.

I'm sold on "nauseous" meaning "experiencing nausea." He's right that most (not just "many" but "most") use it exclusively in that sense, and if indeed it's been used that way for four centuries, that's fairly persuasive that it's a step of linguistic evolution we should allow to occur.

As for "transpire," two centuries is only half the time, and the word isn't as common. But perhaps I'll concede that point also. I still think "happen" is a *better* word to use to mean "happen," but perhaps I'll stop being agitated when people use "transpire" in that sense. I have enough language battles to fight as it is.