Re: prodigious vs. prolific

Well I have to say I disagree with you, or at the very least think that
this is one of those cases where "officially" the definition is not
listed in the dictionary but in fact it is used in that way and through
use, becomes a definition. In Bill Bryson's book about the english
language he sites hundreds of examples of this happening.

Which is why, I suppose, I was able to find these links on a quick
Google search:

Galbraith was a prodigious writer, analyst and commentator.
He wrote more than 48 books ...

John O'Hara was a prodigious writer of short stories.
In THE NEW YORKER and other magazines he had
more than four hundred stories published.

A prodigious writer, he is the author of three popular >
science books and scores of articles ...

John Paul was not a prodigious writer of encyclicals ...
He wrote only 14 ...

It sure seems to me that prodigious can be used as a synonym for
prolific; I don't think any are referring to authors that started as a
young age, but rather that they ... well, were prolific.

Language is dynamic, alive, always changing. Gosh-darn it, I think I
won the bet!

Other opinions?

Bob

Lars Eighner wrote:
In our last episode, <1153133763.816726.44950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
the lovely and talented sygsix@xxxxxxxxx broadcast on alt.usage.english:

Greetings.

I recently got into an argument with a scottish friend of mine (I am
american) about the use of prodigious. I used it as a synonym for
prolific. In describing the author Philip K. *** I said he was
prodigious as he had written many novels and hundreds of short stories.
He "corrected" me saying "you mean, prolific", to which I responded
they *can* mean the same thing.

"Prodigious" does in modern use sometimes mean enormous. That strikes me as
rather loose, but there it is. So prodigious authors would be those who are
enormous, in whose ranks I take second place to no one.

Otherwise, we must fall back on a sounder sense of "prodigious," by which a
prodigious author would be one who began publishing at a young age. Those
who have done so sometimes have become prolific, but very often the contrary
is the case.

We bet on it. 10 euros. I went online and found hundreds of examples of
people using the phrase "prodigious author" followed by the reason they
were prodigious -- they had written many books, articles, what have
you.

I'm sorry, but I reckon you are out 10 euros.

On wordreference.com I found this definition:

3. extraordinary in bulk, quantity, or degree : ENORMOUS

So obviously it can refer to quantity, not just quality as he was
telling me. But then, according to this definition, an author can't be
prodigious but his output can.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw the question to the floor. What do you all
think?


--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. --William Pitt

.

Quantcast