Re: prodigious vs. prolific


UC wrote:
syg...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I simply wanted to see what people thought about the argument. No need
to go calling me a bozo or a cheater. Sheesh. I *am* kidding of course
when I say "I just want my 10 euros".

All I can say is, thanks for those who gave constructive answers. The
fact that I can find any number of examples of the use of prodigious in
this way means that I am not crazy and not alone.

No, you are simply mistaken about what the word means, in common with
some other folks.

What if those "other folks" are in the majority? When does it become
acceptable to the Language Gods to accept a new definition?


Some of these links
were newspapers, university press releases, you name it. I think you
must at least recognize that it is being used in this way by some
people, somewhere in the world. It's very easy to say "they are wrong"
but I am afraid that with language it's not that simple. Who's to say
what's wrong?

Perspiration meter goldfish run puppy whereas?

Your point?


I remember my priest used to go on about how "awesome" used to mean
"awe inspring" (referring to the big guy upstairs) and that now for
most people simply means "great".

The word has become debased.

Maybe so but are you going to tell me that it's not an accepted
definition? Is it just "some other folks" incorrectly using a word?


He thought this was "wrong" and
lamented the loss of the "proper" definition. Well, maybe it's wrong,
maybe it isn't. But most people you'd ask the definition of "awesome"
would say it means "great". And I'll just bet that 100 years ago that
definition was NOT in the dictionary.

So I don't really know whether I've lost or won. We'll probably just
give 5 euros each and have a couple beers and laugh about it. In the
meantime, I'll try to remember to use prolific, so as not to upset
anyone.

Bob

UC wrote:
sygsix@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
So you are saying that writers can be described as prodigious if they
are prolific, but not other types of artists?

How about painters:
Morland was a prodigious painter, producing more
than 4000 paintings during the entirety of his career ...

Sir Winston was a prodigious painter, producing
more than 500 oils and exhibiting ...

Musicians?
... prodigious musician ... composed many thousand
songs in his lifetime ...

Inventors?
A prodigious inventor with over 600 patents to his name,

Are all of these people wrong?

Yes, they are wrong. The word is 'prolific'. 'Prodigious' could refer
to their WORK, not to THEM.

I mean, don't get me wrong. On the
internet you can find as many bad examples of grammar as good, probably
more. But it does seem as if this is an accepted use.

Accepted by whom?

Perhaps you could change the way you are looking at the statement.
Philip *** was prodigious because of his prolific output, among other
things. His being so prolific makes him prodigious?

Nope.

I dunno. I just want my 10 euros!

And you're willing to cheat?

Thanks for all responses,

Bob
Don Phillipson wrote:
<sygsix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1153133763.816726.44950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.

Yes but this is an extended connotation of the application
of the adjective to one particular class of artistic producers.

Consider musicians by contrast.
1. A few star musicians become star performers while
young (e.g. Mozart, Yehudi Menuhin) thus are true prodigies
cf. "infant prodigy."
2. In maturity and old age, a few star musicians remain
prodigious (e.g. Heifetz).
But neither appelation has anything (intrinsic) to do with
the number of different pieces they can play (as in the case
of the prodigious author.) Your Scottish friend seems right.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Bob

.

Quantcast