You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

(2014)

While an interesting perspective, I do have to question whether this is simply a matter of the author preferring Webster's prescriptive nuances over more descriptive approaches, even when those nuances do not appear supported by use.

Taking the example they use, fustian, the OED does not include the idea that it refers specifically to a mismatch between topic and style, and gives numerous examples, from Marlowe onward, of its use without that aspect.

Dictionaries are also useful for problem-solving. I tab-complete "dicto" in my editor and ten random dictionary words appear. I look for intuitive-metaphorical connections to the current problem. This has been very useful on coaching calls. "What if we look at this as a [carousel] amusement project. Where is the fun in it for you?"

One client reminds me every month that one of those random words solved his problem, so it's paid for itself! :-)

Is there any reason to attempt to capture, as you're seemingly describing, the intersection of the usages of a word; the "beige" of definitions? Would it not make more sense to instead describe all the various shades of usage that the word has had emplaced within it by various writers' hands—at least those put forth with enough force for those shades to be recognized and understood by readers today—even if those usages are peculiar and non-standard?

Analogously: if there were to be a book of acrylic paint swatches that described, for each pigment swatch, what things that color resembles, I wouldn't care much for descriptions that held themselves to the standard of applicability in all possible lighting conditions. There are very few pigments that look the same no matter the lighting (maybe some really vivid reds, and Vantablack.) Rather, I would want separate descriptions of what the color would seem to best resemble under various potential lighting conditions, even if those conditions are rare or even unnatural. As the artist doing the painting, I'm not necessarily constrained by a particular lighting condition; I can change the lighting to suit the pigment just as well as I can choose the pigment to suit the lighting (those being two different artistic projects; sometimes you really are painting the Cistene chapel and can't choose how it's lit, but that doesn't mean you can't find inspiration for a different project in the middle of doing so.)

As the writer, if I find an inspiring, yet effectively-unknown definition of a word—well, that's a good opportunity to put that definition to work in my writing in a way that leads people to expand their conception of the word to include my new pet definition.

I remember taking numerous vocabulary tests and quizzes in grade school where the definitions given were of the ‘modern’ type in this article. I wonder if the change in the dictionary was driven by a test based approach to learning the language?

It’s a nice, quantifiable thing to ask a student to define fustian prose as pompous. It’s a lot harder to get the student to explain that fustian is when one tries to punch above the weight class of the idea they’re conveying via flowery prose.