Day 19: Et Tu, Post?

Bigly words are hard.

Terms I don’t understand vex me, like crispy clothing tags. Since I can’t cut them out, I’ve the quaint habit of looking them up. I even use a an honest-to-God dictionary — a big heavy one, with densely-printed pages and cool index cut-outs, one that refuses to include trendy acronyms (WTF?) or fake verbs like “to parent.”

Reference books do it for me, baby.

Too much information, certainly. You don’t need to know what turns me on.

What turns me off is fair game. Take yesterday’s headline in the Denver Post – please! File it under “covfefe.”

I check online, first (I’ll admit that my 20-pound leather-bound dictionary is a pain in the butt to heave around. One day, I’ll have a library podium where I can keep it on display, like an ostentatious family bible open to Two Corinthians that no-one ever touches except the cleaning woman when she’s dusting).

Merriam Webster says that “agazed” is archaic. Its definition is only available if I subscribe to the unabridged online edition for a hefty fee. tells me the word is obscure, but originally meant “aghast.” Other sites mention King Jamesesque shock and awe, as in, “they were sore amazed.”

The Post was straining after cuteness.

Harsh words, those; they’ve been leveled against me, too. It’s a fair cop — I shamelessly mess around, playing language games for the sake of a sweet turn of phrase or a terrible pun or a joke that no-one but me appreciates.

At least my vices haven’t made the front page.


The Denver Post, with its eyes agazed! Where is the editorial board? In Nambia, cruising the Cyber? Those bad hombres should catch such things.

Fox & Friends is all you need, Missy. Just forget the papers.

5 thoughts on “Day 19: Et Tu, Post?

  1. Ben

    Reminds me of a coworker that says “much appreciated” instead of a simple “thank you”.

    • Your comments are much appreciated :-)

  2. Love it! Seems like there’s a bit of accidentally archaism going on over in your humble hometown paper. But the headline doesn’t really make much sense — I’m sensing a typo. Unless they’re trying to play on the idea that owls have big eyes, which is a stretch.

    Here’s the OED on it. “In an astounded or amazed state. Frequently with stand.”

    a1616 Shakespeare Henry VI, Pt. 1 (1623) i. i. 126 The whole Army stood agaz’d on him.

    I have access to the whole OED online (the best dictionary ever) — if you ever stumble across a similarly vexing word, let me know. Perhaps I should just give you my password. Nothing too obsolete for that thing, and always three or four helpful examples of usage.

    • You give the paper too much credit. I’d bet my eye teeth they meant big owl eyes. And I’m fond of my teeth. My goal is to die with them all intact (filled and capped, of course, but intact. Ish). Would love the OED password — but it feels unfaithful. What will my lawfully wedded hard copy think?

      • Expect an email soon! And just don’t mention it to the hard copy…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *