A Word, Please: Legitimate synonym gives rise to ‘hate’ mail

A friend emailed recently to ask me to weigh in on a language issue she finds particularly odious. The subject line of the email was “Question.” The text of the message wasted no time getting to the point: “Historic versus historical. I HATE how they’re misused.”

Most of my conversations about language, be they in person or digital, go like this. Someone — a friend, a family member, a stranger — hates, usually in all caps, some misuse of words. Ughs and aarghs often underscore the point.

Once the emotions are vented, the friend or acquaintance is finally ready to move on to asking me ... well, nothing. The email with the subject line “Question” contained no question at all, just the above statement followed by a politely worded imperative that I “please weigh in!”

That was pretty much the whole email. As you may have noticed, something was missing: an explanation of how, exactly, these two words are misused. My friend just figured I’d be intimately familiar with the offending error.

I’m not.

I have no idea how she thinks “historic” differs from “historical.” I wanted to ask her to explain the perceived mistake. But doing so seemed unkind because I knew that I’d have to correct whatever she said. So asking her to stick her neck out even further smacked of entrapment.

Instead, I just talked about historic and historical.

For these words, as for many others, the most common error is to assume that one word means one thing and the other means something else, and never the twain shall meet. That’s not true. Lots of English words can pinch hit for their close cousins. Done and finished. Rob and burglarize. Less and fewer. Healthy and healthful. Wooden and wood. These are just a few of the many terms that can sometimes do each other’s jobs. So it’s a mistake to assume that words similar in form or meaning are always distinct.

“Historic” and “historical,” as you’ve probably noted, carry different connotations. “Historic” has a grandiose quality, as if it means “momentous” or “significant” or “huge.” “Historical,” on the other hand, conveys an idea of history in its most basic sense. You can see what I mean in a sentence like, “On this historic occasion, we cite the historical record.”

If that’s your sense of where these two words part ways, you’re right on the money. Webster’s main definition of the adjective “historic” is: “having, or likely to have, a lasting significance or importance: a historic occasion.”

“Historical” is defined as “of or concerned with history as a science: the historical method; providing evidence for a fact of history; serving as a source of history: a historical document; based on or suggested by people or events of the past: a historical novel; established by history; not legendary or fictional; factual; real; showing the development or evolution in proper chronological order: a historical account.”

The main definitions of both these words capture our subtle sense of how they differ. Does that mean we’re geniuses at guessing what’s in the dictionary? Not exactly. It means that the dictionary did a good job of reflecting how we use these words. That is, after all, a dictionary’s job — not to tell us how we should use language but to document how we do use language.

But as my friend knows all too well, sometimes we use “historic” to mean “historical,” and maybe even vice-versa. That’s why Webster’s New World College Dictionary lists “historic” as a rare yet legitimate synonym of “historical.” Meaning that whatever misuse my friend hates in all capital letters probably isn’t worth getting upset about.

JUNE CASAGRANDE is the author of “The Best Punctuation Book, Period.” She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.