Dear wwh,

It's not really my opinion. I'm just reading a specific definition and its applied examples pubished in dictionaries. If boys can be 'imperious' then by extension they could be peremptory in that application of that precise definition. And what was the problem with the usage example from Shakespeare by the way?

Here's a quote Anu published:

"And we're provided with mini-narratives familiar even to those with only a passing knowledge of Russian history: the woman who stands day after day outside the political prison in the frigid cold, hoping to catch a glimpse of her husband; the collisions with the imperious and peremptory bureaucrats.
--Jim Shepard, "Dead Souls," New York Times, September 26, 1999"

I would agree with you, wwh, that peremptory is generally used as a word describing a manner and not immediately describing people. But I disagree that the word is strictly limited in describing manner, tone, etc. Peremptory is a perfectly acceptable synonym for haughty, imperious, and other equivalent words. I suspect that if I were to google it and begin the arduous task of checking out its applications, most would either be legal or descriptions of manner. But there would also be some perfectly acceptable applications of peremptory describing some haughty, dog-determined person or persons.
Even little boys.



Edit: wwh, I've had a little fun trying an advanced search on Google. I've learned how to avoid including certain terms by using the minus sign, something I wasn't aware of before thinking about peremptory and its applications. Here's another quote with peremptory applied immediately to a person:

"As for Mr. Craft's preference for "among" where Eliot has "between," his confidence that all that is in question is an "elementary blunder" should not survive Oxford English Dictionary V. 19: "In all senses, between has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two." Even Dr. Johnson was less peremptory than Mr. Craft: "Between is properly used of two, and among of more; but perhaps this accuracy is not always preserved."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/8790