Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2010

In today's (May 29th) New York Times, an unforgivable (and all too
common) error creeps into an otherwise interesting profile of the host
of a popular American public radio program on religion, Krista
Tippett. Describing Ms. Tippett's earlier career as a scholar and
diplomat, the writer of the article, Samuel G. Freedman, says that she
possessed "a fulsome résumé and a social calendar to match".

I have written to Mr. Freedman, noting that, if I were Ms. Tippett, I
would take great offense at this description of my résumé and social
calendar, pointing out that "fulsome", which he may have thought meant
"full" or "rich", in fact describes something odious, or foul (a word
from which it stems). Bill Bryson, in his "Dictionary of Troublesome
Words" describes it as "one of the most frequently misapplied words in
English". In her book "Woe Is I", Patricia T. O'Conner defines fulsome
as meaning "overdone or disgustingly offensive". The word is often
(mis)used in the phrase "fulsome praise", which, as Mr. Bryson points
out, actually means "unctuous and insincere toadying".

I found this solecism surprising not because it comes from The Times,
which is riddled with errors grammatical and factual on a daily basis,
but from the writer of a usually scholarly column, whose email
address, given at the end of the article on line, indicates that he is
associated with Columbia University.

Any thoughts on this word, which, like its cousin "noisome", is
probably misused more often than it is used correctly?

William Lee
Brooklyn, NY
(AmEng bred/BrEng trained)