I have noticed in, say, the last two or three years, that in news broadcasts, web interviews, and the like, concerning disasters, wars, and other violence, the results are always "heartwrenching," never "heartrending" anymore. A search of OneLook shows that "heartwrenching" essentially doesn't exist in dictionaries, "heartrending" is universal. A Google search shows 1,750,000 hits for "heartwrenching," 423,000 for "heartrending." Google Ngrams shows "heartwrenching" showing up in books about 1980 (there might be a tiny bump in the late 1930s, or that could be a rendering glitch), with "heartrending" in the lead, and both words increasing. This (Ngram) is American English – "heartwrenching" is apparently very rare in British books.
Has anyone else noticed this trend, if trend it is, and is "heartrending" in possible jeopardy?
Peter
I hope you are heartened to hear that my sister sent me an e-mail yesterday evening in which she, unsolicited, used the word heartrending. She was quoting a post she placed on my brother's Facebook page.
However, I hear heartwrenching very often, and I am surprised it isn't found in any dictionaries. That, to me, seems like a grave omission. I think there is place for both words, with slightly different nuance that seems to work out naturally. Maybe we should be glad that people mistakenly say heartwrenching.
Since I hear heartwrenching commonly and in reference to all sorts of casual situations from a child's burst balloon, to a tear-jerking movie, to the most recent Extreme Home Makeover, all forgotten by the morning, perhaps it can refer to a situation with a superficial and temporary emotional impact.
Heartrending is then left unmolested to fulfill its proper place, a higher calling, designating a truly lasting sorrow of substance.
Thanks, Glenn, I like that solution.
tromboniator said:
A Google search shows 1,750,000 hits for "heartwrenching," 423,000 for "heartrending."
Just to make things interesting, I see 101,000 hits for "heartrendering".
I'm speechrended!