I posted, in the Miscellany section, about the use of complimentary and complementary. My thoughts then turned to another 'misuse' about which I wanted opinions: regime versus regimen.

I have always used regimen when referring to a course of therapy, or a diet or otherwise, whilst regime seemed to me to be reserved for rule or government. Admittedly, the two share the same Latin root, but I appreciate the fine distinction in use. Except that it seems as if nobody else does any more. Everywhere I look these days, a diet, a course of exercise, or therapy, seems to be referred to as a regime. Am I behind the times? How many here would like to see the distinction maintained?

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Sign me up, said the rigid stick-in-the-mud.

An interesting side-bar: in the second of Laurie King's
Sherlock Holmes series, "A Monstrous Regiment of Women",
she gives an explanatory note following the preface. There is a quote from John Knox's "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women". Then in parentheses is: "(Published in 1558 against Mary Tudor; later applied to Mary Stuart. Regiment is used in the sense of régime.)"
This is the least good of the so-far five in the series, IMHO.

Am I behind the times?
Very likely, worse luck

How many here would like to see the distinction maintained?
Unreserved agreement. (Whoops - not a complete sentence!)

This sort of misuse is common, and we could bring (have brought) out many examples on this board. Is it getting to be more common than of yore? Are standards of teaching English really slipping in schools? or is this change just part of language's dynamism which I have applauded in other threads?

In reply to:

---

Are standards of teaching English really slipping in schools? or is this change just part of language's dynamism which I have applauded in other threads?

---

I fear a bit of both. Standards of reading have, IMO, declined considerably, with TV (monitors, computer screens, what have you) being the primary source of linguistic 'input' for children. As a result, not only are the old spelling/grammar values not present, but also the quality of the language is probably 'simplified' to cope with verbal comprehension (see my thread on 'speaking in sentences'). If, therefore, children and young adults have no experience of dealing with complex sentences and words, I doubt if they will have any respect for the fine distinctions that AWADophiles attempt to maintain.

With regard to the dynamism of language, I agree that it is to be applauded, but, ideally, when it is creative rather than simply destructive. This is a personal opinion, but I mourn the loss of 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', for the relatively meaningless 'the proof's in the pudding'. I have mixed feelings about chaise lounge (and I have posted about this before), because I like the serendipitous connection between the misspelling and mispronunciation with the activity most likely to be performed in the long chair, but, as must be obvious, I rue the loss of the etymological connection between chaise longue (the original) and the shape of the chair itself.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

but I mourn the loss of 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', for the relatively meaningless 'the proof's in the pudding'.

I agree with you that some changes are destructive, and therefore to be deplored. However, I rather like your example - it tends to increase the meaning of the old saw, rather than diminish it. One can read so much more into that gnomic adaptation of the old saw.
(e.g., "I dropped my new book whilst I was correcting it in the kitchen. Now the proof is in the pudding." )

I like the one that I overheard a colleague use today;
"Well, we aren't dragging our wheels over this one."
As so few people use their feet enough to drag them, these days, the vehicular reference is particularly apt. It also has the connotation of going off course.

However, I do have to admit to moments of irritation when I hear well-loved phrases being put through the mangle.

Most people I know still reserve the word régime for government. I have not found the crossover in Cda that you seem to have in U.K.

For my own personal edification I looked it up in the Websters New Collegiate Dictionary. In the U.S. the words do share the same the <systematic plan, as of diet etc.> definition.

Perhaps regime is gaining acceptance as a course of therapy/diet because most of these diets are faddish. Fads tend to adopt a language that makes them seem more 'real' or 'official'. Régime is French for diet and if you are going to market a diet (regimen) it is an easier sell if you use a word that sounds more exotic in its name. Eau de toilette sounds so much better than the real description of the product (watered down perfume oil). Citrus régime sounds better than grapefruit diet. Marketing is good at blurring the truth (or making it seem a little less harsh.) A régime sounds so much easier to take than a diet - et voila - a new definition for a word is accepted.

Am I behind the times? How many here would like to see the distinction maintained?

Take heart, shanks, I suspect that there is more than a little Knut in everyone who comes here.