Right. Yeah. because languages don't evolve, right?
it's an accepted OED definition and has been for years (specifically referring to the magnitude of something if that magnitude is overwhelming).

The only ignorance lies in blindly maintaining that word meanings as a feature of language cannot change and evolve over time. I assume, by this, you still use the proper meanings of "artificial" and "brave"* and "nice", then?

*edited for the fact this one is probably wrong, thus proving the maxim, "never google for extra examples of something when you have a perfectly good one already"
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Apr 2011, 12:47, 1 reply)

I'll just assume
That you were in too much of a hurry to read this carefully. Your "Yeah..." sarcasm appears to try to introduce a point I have already made; and which both acknowledges language evolution in general and assumes that it has occurred in this specific case. Since I specifically address a nuance of the evolution of language it seems to indicate quite poor reading skills to introduce that concept sarcastically as "an alternative".

The more subtle point that I go on to address is whether most usage follows the evolved usage (correctly) or abuses the original usage (happening to "hit" an evolved usage).

As for your "assumptions", I think that you'll no longer feel the need for them once you've read either my original reply to the OP or this one.

Your final paragraph perhaps illuminates your reply more than its actual content: the rush to Google to data-drill for support can often mean that the gist is missed, as you have done.
(snopesthetruth, Thu 7 Apr 2011, 9:28, closed)