@contrex,
Quote:An example of the qualification I mention above is in the example quoted at the start of this thread, where the word 'quack' is attached, by means of a hyphen, to the word 'religious'.
Which brings us full circle in this exchange.
Odd, isn't it, that we quote dictionaries of 1755 to give credence to a film review from USA Today. The writer would be astonished, and who knows, even gratified. But not exonerated, in my book. I consider it a clumsy and rather ugly mistake.
Language moves and shifts, we all agree. So I will leave quackery where I believe it belongs.