Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

Sure, I've heard both those terms used metaphorically too, but I don't think it subtracts from their original meaning. Geologists and the military will continue to use them in their original sense, and everyone will know what they mean.

Rant notwithstanding, I don't see how these examples are any different from many other terms that entered the language with a specific and narrow meaning, but were then re-purposed for more general use. Examples: black hole (used to describe a bad investment, a money pit), catalyst (a cause for any effect, not necessarily chemical), memory dump (unloading a bunch of stuff from your brain, not necessarily computer RAM).

Curious, but I just noticed all the examples that came to my mind were originally technical jargon. Do you suppose that's because a lot of new words/terms enter the language from technical disciplines, where specific and narrow definitions are the norm, and new words are often needed?

I accept that it's a minor complaint, but I will defend myself to this extent, that while "black hole" and "memory dump" are used more or less correctly (although metaphorically), "epicenter", "catalyst" and possibly "ground zero" are not.

A black hole is an object that attracts all mass and even energy and gives nothing out, if you except a few X-rays from the point (at the "event horizon") where matter is torn apart, by tidal forces I believe.   To use it metaphorically for anything that takes in without giving back out is more or less descriptive without distorting the original meaning.

A catalyst is a material that accelerates a chemical reaction that would have taken place in any case; it participates in the reaction without itself being changed into anything else.   (Technically it is changed, but only temporarily; when the reaction is complete, there is exactly as much of the catalyst as there was to start with.)   Therefore you could use the word to refer to a person around whom quarrels, panics or accidents begin although he himself is not seen to quarrel, panic or stumble.   But it would be sloppy (in my opinion) to say that toxic assets were the catalyst for the recession, or fatigue for errors, because a catalyst is not simply another and fancier word for "cause".

"Epicenter", likewise, is not simply another and more impressive-sounding word for "center".   Even worse, it's sometimes used to mean the cause or catalyst of an event, whereas a real epicenter is just a location.

"Ground zero", on the other hand, is not misused to mean "cause", although I do most often hear it as merely an important-sounding word for "the place where it all happened" or "...started".   Still wrong, just not as wrong.

As a computer geek, I dislike it when "dump" is misunderstood by authors of fiction to mean "delete" (as you see in the otherwise outstanding novel The Hunt for Red October).   But if it's ever used as you say above, Heimhenge, I have no complaints about that...reluctantly.

Technology?   You know, now that you ask, it isn't clear to me where else we ever get new words.   Well, except when we borrow them from other languages, I guess, which seems to happen nowadays as often as it ever did, or even more.