ravish = 'to ravage'

[Charles C Doyle]

It seems to me that the confusion occurs more often in the opposite direction.  Students somewhat frequently nowadays say "ravage" when they mean "rape."

--Charlie

________________________________________
From: American Dialect Society [ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] on behalf of Jonathan Lighter [wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:52 AM

I believe it was Theodore Bernstein who alerted me to the fact that some
writers confuse use _ravish_ when they "mean" _ravage_. As I recall, the
horrible example involved locusts "ravishing" the landscape.

A recent ex.:

2000 Sanford V. Sternlicht _Chaim Potok: A Critical Companion_  (Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood) 136: They...pull their way through a landscape of death
and destruction to Seoul, the ravished capital of South Korea.

What makes the usage interesting is that the OED sort of covers this in its
def. 1a:  "To plunder, rob, steal from (a place, building, race or class of
people, etc.); to devastate, lay waste to (a country). Also *fig.* *Obs."*

Obviously "devastate, lay waste to" is the operative idea in both the locust
and wartime exx. However, modern use may really be through confusion with
"ravage," as OED lists nothing after 1674. (Bacon was the perhaps the most
notable user, ca1619.)

A distinction without a difference? A subliterary survival? Another sign of
the Inglish Apocalypse?  Bernstein thought the latter, but others may judge.

Whatever. OED still needs to account for current "ravish/ravage."

JL

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org