0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
Usage
Fulsome
Simon Winchester, after he wrote "The Professor and the Madman" took a lot of heat from prescriptivists for using the word "fulsome" several times in the book as a synonym for "abundant." I checked in the OED and the word is defined wholly in negative terms such as "gross," "foul," disgusting," "fawning," etc. Encarta World allows the sense of "lavish" for "fulsome." Do you think Winchester used the word incorrectly? I do not, because, I believe that when most people use the phrase "fulsome praise," theay are using it in the sense of "abundant" without any implication of insincerity. What thinks you?
Top answer
[nq:1]Simon Winchester, after he wrote "The Professor and the Madman" took a lot of heat from prescriptivists for using the ... phrase "fulsome praise," theay are using it in the sense of "abundant" without any implication of insincerity. [/nq] I have learnt something from reading this posting.
- [nq:1]Simon Winchester, after he wrote "The Professor and the Madman" took a lot of heat from prescriptivists for using the ...
- phrase "fulsome praise," theay are using it in the sense of "abundant" without any implication of insincerity.
- [/nq] I have learnt something from reading this posting.
- I had always imagined in the past that "fulsome" meant "copious" or "generous".
- The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary does indeed give "copious" as a meaning of the word, but the definition is given as "disgusting by excess of flattery, servility, or expressions of affections".
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
58 Answers
0
[nq:1]Simon Winchester, after he wrote "The Professor and the Madman" took a lot of heat from prescriptivists for using the ... phrase "fulsome praise," theay are using it in the sense of "abundant" without any implication of insincerity. What thinks you?[/nq]
I have learnt something from reading this posting. I had always imagined in the past that "fulsome" meant "copious" or "generous". The
I have learnt something from reading this posting. I had always imagined in the past that "fulsome" meant "copious" or "generous". The
00
[nq:1].. I checked in the OED and the word is defined wholly in negative terms such as "gross," "foul," disgusting," "fawning," etc. Encarta World allows the sense of "lavish" for "fulsome." ...[/nq]
I believe the word is presently evolving.
The "ful" in it was originally rooted in "foul".
But the word suggests to many that the "ful" should be rooted in "full" and it is evolving toward
I believe the word is presently evolving.
The "ful" in it was originally rooted in "foul".
But the word suggests to many that the "ful" should be rooted in "full" and it is evolving toward
00
[nq:1]Simon Winchester, after he wrote "The Professor and the Madman" took a lot of heat from prescriptivists for using the ... phrase "fulsome praise," theay are using it in the sense of "abundant" without any implication of insincerity. What thinks you?[/nq]
Whilst I learned at a young age that "fulsome" implied insincerity excessively flattery, I'm very aware that it's now most often used t
Whilst I learned at a young age that "fulsome" implied insincerity excessively flattery, I'm very aware that it's now most often used t
00
[nq:1]"He moved his hands slowly down and gently caressed her fulsome *******, kissing her passionately." I am now totally confused, ... that her ******* were attractively plump and squeezable, or were they disgusting by excess? Or a bit of both, perhaps?[/nq]
Nope: you should read it as you first thought that they were "very full" but realise that the writer eiether doesn'
00
[nq:2].. I checked in the OED and the word is ... Encarta World allows the sense of "lavish" for "fulsome." ...[/nq]
[nq:1]I believe the word is presently evolving. The "ful" in it was originally rooted in "foul".[/nq]
Actually, not quite accurate. The prefix is from "thawl", nordic in origin, related to modern English "fuel". The fuel in question consisted of animal waste. Hence the negat
[nq:1]I believe the word is presently evolving. The "ful" in it was originally rooted in "foul".[/nq]
Actually, not quite accurate. The prefix is from "thawl", nordic in origin, related to modern English "fuel". The fuel in question consisted of animal waste. Hence the negat
00
[nq:1]Simon Winchester, after he wrote "The Professor and the Madman" took a lot of heat from prescriptivists for using the ... phrase "fulsome praise," theay are using it in the sense of "abundant" without any implication of insincerity. What thinks you?[/nq]
While we're on the subject, what about the use of "Professor" in the American title of this book? (In the UK it was called "The Surgeon
While we're on the subject, what about the use of "Professor" in the American title of this book? (In the UK it was called "The Surgeon
00
[nq:1]For me, this is a classic case of what's known (at least in this newsgroup) as a "skunked" word, or one that is unusable with either its original or evolving sense. (Others in this category are "disinterested" and "bemused".)[/nq]
What's happened to "bemuse" to skunk it?
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove number to reply
What's happened to "bemuse" to skunk it?
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove number to reply
00
[nq:1]Personally, I can't bring myself to use it in the sense of "abundant", as I know that's not correct; but ... or one that is unusable with either its original or evolving sense. (Others in this category are "disinterested" and "bemused".)[/nq]
I would like to ask the same question about "bemused" as Katie has. You can add to your list "infer", which until about 50 years ago (perhaps longe
I would like to ask the same question about "bemused" as Katie has. You can add to your list "infer", which until about 50 years ago (perhaps longe
00
[nq:2]For me, this is a classic case of what's known ... evolving sense. (Others in this category are "disinterested" and "bemused".)[/nq]
[nq:1]What's happened to "bemuse" to skunk it?[/nq]
It's used, as far as I can tell, as a sort of diminutive of amused "mildly entertained".
It's not as common a misuse as "disinterested" and "fulsome", but I've heard it often enough that I now avoi
[nq:1]What's happened to "bemuse" to skunk it?[/nq]
It's used, as far as I can tell, as a sort of diminutive of amused "mildly entertained".
It's not as common a misuse as "disinterested" and "fulsome", but I've heard it often enough that I now avoi
00
[nq:2]For me, this is a classic case of what's known ... evolving sense. (Others in this category are "disinterested" and "bemused".)[/nq]
[nq:1]I would like to ask the same question about "bemused" as Katie has.[/nq]
I encounter it being used to mean "mildly/ironically amused" not enough to be "fully amused", but enough to raise a small, knowing smile. ("I was bemused
0
Related Questions