I am pretty sure if we were to probe your language history, we would find instances of presently used in that manner, you just didn’t notice it. No matter, and although I don’t usually like to encourage this sort of thing, presently originally did mean simply “at this moment”. The differentiation almost always, if not unreservedly always, occurs via the tense. Future tense + presently means sooner or later. Present tense + presently means now.
Well, presently, I’ll keep my ears open for this egregious misuse. 
A pet peeve isn’t an animal, it’s a metaphor. Don’t get in a pet about it. 
From Google “define pet”:
The only place I’ve seen “presently” used to mean “the future,” IIRC, is a book written about fifty years ago.
Sorry, I meant I’ve never heard someone use “temper” to mean “ability to control emotional volatility.” I’ve only heard it the other way.
Nice to know someone is paying attention to the small details. This has to be near the top of the top-ten misused words list.
Original meaning completely lost. Temper has moved from the “restraint against anger” to become the anger itself.
Thanks, jim
Seems to me that the reason “presently” is up for discussion is that when someone says presently, they’re using it as a mildly sarcastic temporary appeasement, as in “I’ll get to it presently”, which seems to indicate “not now”, “I’ll get to it in good time”, or “I’ll get to it when you stop bugging me about it.”
Thanks, jim
I’ve seen presently used in the “near future” way. Usually by some snooty butler or something. “The master shall arrive presently…”
I used to watch The People’s Court back when Joe Wapner was the judge, and though I liked him generally, he used to ask people “Do you have a temper?” when what he MEANT was “Do you have a short fuse and a tendency to lose control?” Someone can get very, very mad and yet not fly off the handle.
My grandfather used to rant that “great” used to and still should mean “large”. My old podiatrist used to refer to big toes as great toes…but he was pretty old. I miss him.
“Narcotic” is a good example of how some usages become entrenched because we need a single collective term to cover a disparate group of things. In some contexts the relevant fact is that some drugs, regardless of their pharmacological effects, are subject to stricter laws and controls than ordinary prescription meds. That’s rather a mouthful so it’s easier just to say “narcotics”. I’ve even heard pharmaciststs use the word this way when referring to the legal or regulatory aspects of a controlled substance. “I can’t fill this, it’s a narcotic and your doctor forgot to check the quantity box”–they really do make them cross their t’s on those things, don’t they.
Awesome.
“forte” for a strength is from French and should be pronounced “fort” - “for-tay” is from the Italian for “loud,” as in pianoforte.
So when I hear someone say X is their fortay, I chuckle inside and think “that’s their loud!”
And then I sigh and think how I really need to let that go
On “presently”: think of “presenting,” as in a person or show, or “a present,” as in a wrapped gift. These are on the way, things you are about to see.
On “temper”: think of “tempering,” as for glass, or steel, or chocolate. These are processes to make the materials strong, stable, uniform. Steady. Reliable.
As the author of the piece which got your panties in a twist, I could point to a number of dictionaries which define the word as
The thing I love about pedantic people is that they are so often wrong.
That was exactly my point. I was not criticizing any individual usage, much less yours; I was lamenting that through frequent misuse over a long time, the word has come to mean the opposite of its original meaning. That is why you were able to find such a definition in a descriptive source. (See also: comprise)
I referenced your post because someone said they were not familiar with that usage, so I provided an example. (I think it turned out they meant that they were not familiar with the *original *meaning.)
[sigh] Again with the twisted panties. I would request that you read all of my posts in the thread. Also note what forum we are in.
Semantic shift and semantic weakening are our constant neighbors when it comes to language. If we trace any word back far enough, inevitably we end up with ‘wrong’ meanings. What we should be concerned with is what the word means now.
Clearly “temper,” like many words, has multiple related usages, at least one of which is or can appear opposite the others.
In times of transition, or potential transition, it’s reasonable to consider what words are coming, or might come, to mean. Do those usages improve the language?
I once heard a sportscaster talk about the ‘enormity’ of a college football team’s front line (gridiron football, that is).
They didn’t look particularly evil to me. Large, yes, but not evil.