25 III 2002 - 21:40 - brevis41

I suppose I'm not too tired to argue, Adam.

From Fowler's Modern English Usage (which is now edited by Robert Burchfield, comes from Oxford University Press, blah don't sue me please) comes the following entry:

conciseness, concision. To anyone familiar with the earliest senses of the word concision, namely 'the action of cutting to pieces; mutilation' (first recorded 1382) and 'circumcision' (Beware of dogs, beware of euill workers: beware of the concision-Phil. (AV) 3:2), where it is applied contemptuously to Judaizing Christians, the natural word for brevity of speech or writing is conciseness. Fowler (1926) regarded concision as a literary critics' word used by writers under French influence, 'and often requiring the reader to stop and think whether he knows its meaning'. Conciseness, first recorded in 1659, is now perhaps the more usual of the two words in the sense 'brevity (of style)', but both words are freely used.

Thus proving nothing except for that we're both right, and I am a dork who is desperate to avoid the assignment of making his English essay more concise.

At any rate, I hope Ian enjoys his visit, and that, well, I think my thoughts just left me. Take care.