ENORMITY - does it have to be monstrous?

[gopunk]

so i bought strunk and white's 'the elements of style'... and they write:

Use [enormity] only in the sense of "monstrous wickedness." Misleading, if not wrong, when used to express bigness.

but webster's says:

enormity

\E*nor"mi*ty\, n.; pl. Enormities. [L. enormitas, fr. enormis enormous: cf. F. ['e]normit['e]. See Enormous.] 1. The state or quality of exceeding a measure or rule, or of being immoderate, monstrous, or outrageous.

The enormity of his learned acquisitions. --De Quincey.

2. That which is enormous; especially, an exceeding offense against order, right, or decency; an atrocious crime; flagitious villainy; an atrocity.

These clamorous enormities which are grown too big and strong for law or shame. --South.

seems like bigness is okay by them... but then OED says that usage is "obsolete". did some word nazis just come along and decide this usage was bad?

 

[AreaCode707]

Strunk and White's is correct.

Bachelors in English. June 2001 from University of California, Davis

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Strunk and White's is correct.

Bachelors in English. June 2001 from University of California, Davis

webster's is wrong? 😱

or is webster's to english majors what aol is to compsci majors...

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: HotChic
Strunk and White's is correct.

Bachelors in English. June 2001 from University of California, Davis

webster's is wrong? 😱

or is webster's to english majors what aol is to compsci majors...

The OED is god. Webster's isn't wrong though. It never connects enormity with physical size, which is what you're referring to when you say bigness. It defines enormity as exceeding a measure or rule. I don't see that either of the Webster's definitions contradicts S&W or the OED.