Should you still study the "obsolete" definitions?

4prender

Member
United States
I just came across this word's definitions:

de·lude tr.v., -lud·ed, -lud·ing, -ludes.
  1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: fraudulent ads that delude consumers into sending in money. See synonyms at decieve.
  2. Obsolete. To elude or evade.
  3. Obsolete. To frustrate the hopes or plans of.
As you can see, two of the defintions are "obsolete" and are supposedly no longer in use. Should I still take time to memorize those definitions or just the more modern one? Will I sound weird if I used those according to those definitions? Thanks.
 
  • mplsray

    Senior Member
    I just came across this word's definitions:



    As you can see, two of the defintions are "obsolete" and are supposedly no longer in use. Should I still take time to memorize those definitions or just the more modern one? Will I sound weird if I used those according to those definitions? Thanks.
    Yes, it would sound weird if you used it according to those definitions. There's little point in memorizing obsolete meanings unless you have occasion to read texts in which they might be found.
     

    mplsray

    Senior Member
    [T]wo of the defintions are "obsolete" and are supposedly no longer in use.
    (Emphasis mine.) Dictionary makers are careful how they apply these labels. The standard used by Webster's Third New International Dictionary for identifying a word as "obsolete," for example, is that "no evidence of standard use since 1755 has been found or is likely to be found." (Section 8.1.1 of Explanatory Notes, page 18a.)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top