3 ms·
"Common" != "correct". I know languages are living things, and often words organically take on new definitions. But "revert" meaning "reply" is one of the stupi
by jogjayr 7y ago
"Common" != "correct". I know languages are living things, and often words organically take on new definitions. But "revert" meaning "reply" is one of the stupider evolutions IMO.
It probably started because someone wanted to sound "professional". They saw this word and went "hey, this word seems like a more formal way to say 'reply', I'll just use it". Without ever bothering to check its definition in the dictionary.
- antiterra 7y agoSometimes a new usage is jarring or inharmonious, and that discord causes us to derisively argue the usage is ignorant and contemptible. I would suggest that we should resist this impulse. It's that same impulse that suggests the 'aks' pronunciation of 'ask' is indicative of ignorance, despite it having an unbroken lineage back to Old English. In this case, the first OED cited usage of 'revert' in the 'reply' sense is nearly half a century old and from the Times of India. There's also a good deal of documentation of 'revert' in the 'return' sense: 1828 A. A. Opie Detraction Displayed xv. 231 None can shoot these arrows, but they must expect they will revert with a rebounded force. Cites like this go back to the medieval period. It's completely reasonable for revert to take on the meaning of reply. In the 14th century, reply' itself was used to indicate repeating or echoing.
- jogjayr 7y ago> In this case, the first OED cited usage of 'revert' in the 'reply' sense is nearly half a century old and from the Times of India. Doesn't make it correct. You're saying it's not possible for the Times of India to be wrong? I used to read it daily for 10 years and they had their share of mistakes. > documentation of 'revert' in the 'return' sense 'return' is not the same as 'reply'.