No offense meant.
K. Duly whooshed.
Not at all. I understand. Sorry for not being clearer.
My dictionary says " a typical or ideal example". To me that means so typical as to be exceptional. A Platonic ideal. In that sense, “the best [example] of”, “an exceptional [example of]”. Maybe “epitome” doesn’t mean what you think it means?
There’s glory for you!!
I gotta say that in threads about proper usage, the lack of good spell check sure makes the game more fun to play. Typo, worldplay, or just bad usage; who can tell for sure?
p.s. The “worldplay” was a genuine typo I noticed before submitting, corrected, then decided to put back in there for effect. Gaudere: narrowly avoided then embraced.
You’re sure that’s not “dually whooshed”?
::runs::
Humpty Dumpty. Snark. It’s all Lewis Carroll. 
Don’t you mean gentle? 
You got that right. But not the others.
Dictionaries are descriptive. They keep track of how a word is commonly used; they don’t prescribe the “proper” use of the word. The word “epitome” has, through frequent misuse, come to be understood to mean “ideal.” So the dictionary is accurate in that when you hear someone use the word “epitome” what they probably mean to express is “ideal,” but this has come about through the entrenchment of that misusage.
Well, can you give me an epitome of the word being misused?
Nitpick: you are using it incorrectly here, although not in the same way. It’s not interchangeable with “example.” A closer synonym might be “examplar.”
If you think that Meryl Streep is the greatest actress who ever lived, you might say (although it would be incorrect) that “Meryl Streep is the epitome of American actresses.” In fact, the epitome of American actress would probably be someone like K.K. Dodds , who’s played a witness on NYPD Blue, a young mother in Grosse Point Blank, a cop’s girlfriend on The Shield, a murderer on CSI, and an evil sidekick in *Spiderman *(and also my roommate’s girlfriend in highschool).
Also, what dictionary is that? Dictionary.com says, quoting The American Heritage Dictionary–
[ol]
[li]A representative or example of a class or type: “He is seen… as the epitome of the hawkish, right-of-center intellectual” (Paul Kennedy).[/li][li]A brief summary, as of a book or article; an abstract.[/li][/ol]
–and, quoting “WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University”–
[ol]
[li]a standard or typical example; “he is the prototype of good breeding”; “he provided America with an image of the good father” [syn: prototype, paradigm, image][/li][li]a brief abstract (as of an article or book)[/li][/ol]
I realized I was using it incorrectly, I thought it was kind of funny. I think in the case of “epitome”, for the most part, people are using it correctly. In my experience, people use it to mean “the example that most easily comes to mind” or even “the best example” rather than “the apex” or “the best”. I don’t think that K.K. Dodds is “the epitome of the American actress” as most people have never even heard of her. In that sense she is a very poor example rather than a typical one. I also see where you are coming from on this, I just think you are mistaken. You yourself say that a closer synonym would be “examplar”. Well, while K.K. Dodds may be an exemplar of American actresses, Meryl streep could be considered the exemplar of american actresses.
No, you’re still misunderstanding. Meryl Streep is almost unique among American actresses: she’s won more oscars than anyone but Katherine Hepburn. She is very much the exception. Examplar or epitome does not mean the BEST example; it means the most TYPICAL example. The average working actress, like KK Dodds, outnumbers the top-of-the-heap exceptions like Meryl Streep or Gwyneth Paltrow by a factor of thousands. There are few bell curves as extreme as the one that describes obscurity-to-megastar. The epitome or the exemplar is, properly speaking, the example that is found at the highest point, the middle point, of the bell curve. Meryl Streep is nearly alone at the far extreme right of the bell curve, so she is not representative of the typical American actress by any stretch of the imagination. Epitome, properly used, implies averageness; unexceptionalness. Meryl Streep is hardly your “average” American actress.
–and the fact that you’ve never heard of her was exactly the point: You haven’t heard of probably 99% of working actresses, unless you happen to be a TV casting agent.
The “proper” use of a word is to convey meaning. If a word is used in such a way that it conveys the intended meaning efficiently and with the connotations the speaker desires, than it has been used properly.
What a word is commonly used to convey is it’s definition.
To take your tack is try to do what the French do, and artificially freeze language in the midst of its evolution.
To try to be a language purist with a language like English is laughable. English is a hodge podge mix of many languages that evolved over time and political conquest.
To be an English language “purist” is to posess the mangiest mutt in the pound, the product of a wild night of crap shooting at the canine gene pool, a real heinz 57, and then to take this mutt on a leash to the Westminster dog show to brag on it’s pedigree.
In short, there is no “purity” to be had.
On the other hand, I suspect that this is not what you really mean when you talk about purity of usage.
What you are really talking about, or so I guess, is style.
To use the wrong word pretentiously or awkwardly may still convey meaning, but not the way the speaker desires. I’m all for people using words in clever and new ways provided of course they do so with pizazz.
When someone makes a particularly awkawd clunk of usage it’s as misapropos as a fart in a bathysphere. 
You notice I put the word “proper” in quotes, and never applied it to language, only to specific words, in very specific ways. I have also acknowledged that, to many people, “epitome” communicates the meaning “exceptional.” So what new thing are you bringing to this, Scylla?
This has also been acknowledged.
Doesn’t this ever get tiresome, Scylla? I’m not arguing for legislation. I am simply communicating; I am adding information to the conversation. And again—apparently you did not have the courage to say what you really meant, and instead had to hide between a dishonest “whoosh”—you have not read the thread, and you have not understood what I have said. I am vehemently against anything that would “freeze language in the midst of its evolution.” Vehemently. Against. Please read for comprehension.*
Agreed, and utterly outside of what this particular thread is about.
. . . especially since I’ve never said anything about purity of usage.
Much closer to what I’m talking about. Was that so hard?
*I’m sorry for the anger of my tone, Scylla, but the consistency of your negativity toward me gets so very, very old. We are two intelligent, insightful people who happen to disagree about one major thing: politics. You insist on indulging the prejudice that this has raised in you at every possible possible opportunity. Your apparent need to disregard anything I say that might make sense or that you might actually agree with, in favor of only ever focusing on things that I say that you can find fault with, makes me reluctant to restate my position for your benefit. It’s there in this thread already, and if you weren’t so obsessively prejudiced against anything I could ever possibly say about anything—ever since I acknowledged my own prejudices toward certain kinds of political thought and tried to explain the emotional context for those prejudices—I might hope that restating it would be productive. Fool me once, though, you know?
Further clarification:
I have never suggested that such usage should not be “allowed.” And the language will change the way it’s going to change.
My intent is that, if I communicate the things I’m attempting to communicate in this thread, then perhaps a perfectly good word will not so easily *lose *its meaning. My assumption is that there are some people who will read this thread who have only heard these words used incorrectly. Such misusage, I’ve acknowledged, is common enough to have made it into the dictionaries, so this assumption is not all that farfetched. My hope is that some passing Doper will read this thread and go, “Huh. I never new that. I alwasy assumed that X meant Y, because so many people use it that why. Now I know what it really means!”–and CHOOSE to use it correctly from here on out.
I am attempting to spread information–what’s the phrase? oh yeah, “fight ignorance”–so that some readers of this thread may, perhaps, come away from it with MORE information, rather than less.
If my information is accurate, I simply cannot fathom the harm in that, Scylla. Abstract pontifications about the “evolution of language” aside, if I am–quite literally–fighting ignorance by contributing information, what can your possible objection be?
You will read this thread, and then you will decide for yourself how you will communicate with other people. Nothing I have said in any way infringes on your ability to communicate in the way that you want to. So your insistance that I am whining and that I represent a threat to language, that I am advancing an agenda of “limiting” language, makes absolutely no sense.
I too love the evolution of language. Here, I’ll use numbers to offer a metaphorical illustration. Say that a language consists of only these elements, at a certain point in time: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Within the vocabulary of that language, you can communicate a great number of things. Say somebody comes along and adds “4 and a half” to the language. Greater accuracy is now possible in communicating with this language. Now, say a fashion takes hold to use “3” when you really mean “5.” Eventually, through frequent misusage, the distinction between 3 and 5 is blurred, so that when some people say 3, they really mean 5, but it’s hard to tell. Say that misusage becomes so common that eventually 3 comes to be understood, by everybody, to be totally interchangeable with 5. That vocabulary, which used to have 10 meanings, now has 9. A vast abstraction, but just trying to make a point.
That is the ONLY kind of linguistic change you will ever see me complain about.
I’m sorry for overreacting to your posts in this thread, Scylla, and bringing in history irrelevant to this thread, but it kinda infuriates me to see you accuse me of arguing FOR a limiting of the language when, in fact, I am arguing AGAINST the limiting of the language. And doing so only by offering information.