I refer to Mr Janadas Devan's column, 'A question of great enormity' (Oct11), in which he raised the distinction between the two words, 'enormousness' and 'enormity'.

I do not wish to contradict Mr Janadas. I know my knowledge of etymology and linguistics is limited. But I wish to give my opinion on the usage of words.

As Mr Janadas pointed out, pro-per usage of words is important.

However, if the meaning of a word has changed, should we still stick steadfastly to its anachronistic definition?

Words are but a vehicle of communication. They do not define reality. In fact, the converse is true.

Hypothetically, if every single person were to remove the word 'cat' from his lexicon, would that erase the existence of the four-legged feline that goes 'meow'?

Words mean only what we want them to mean. If we all now call that creature a 'qxerblook', then it would become a qxerblook.

It is the same with 'enormousness' and 'enormity'. Once it is accepted in daily use to equate the two, then what's the fuss?

Changes in the meanings of words are quietly accepted. Dictionaries publish new editions regularly, adding new words while removing disused ones.

I applaud Mr Janadas for his love of the English language, but perhaps some of its beauty lies in its dynamism, and we have to either live with it or fight a losing battle.

Zeng Yanzhi