When exactly did the word \”full-blown\” become part of our official vernacular?
I think the first time I saw \”full-blown\” in print was in reference to someone having \”full-blown AIDS\”. Since that time the word has shown up more and more: full-blown diabetes, full-blown hostilities, full-blown
Maybe it\’s a perfectly cromulent word, but it seems awkward to me. Not to mention quite redundant. Is having AIDS different from full-blown AIDS? I feel pretty certain that full-blown isn\’t a medical term. From usage I gather that its use is to differentiate between pre-something and the actual something. Someone can be pre-diabetic, but then end up with full-blown diabetes.
Maybe it\’s because I don\’t come from the Dickensian world, in that I focus on the economy of words, but it seems that full-blown is a nothing word that brings nothing to the party. Which means it fits in perfectly with today\’s media/world.
Leave a Reply