Question: "Entree" means "entry" in French, so why do we call the main course of our meals the "entree"? It seems that "entree" should refer to the appetizer.
Answer: You're right, most of us would not regard the main course of a meal as the "entrance" or beginning of anything (the exception, of course, being those who tolerate the main course merely as a prelude to dessert).
"Entree" originated in Old French and first served as the source for the Middle English "entre," which in the 13th century came into modern English as "entry." In the 18th century "entree" was once again borrowed, this time in unaltered form, from the French. In this incarnation "entree" originally had the sense, still current, of "the act or manner of entering." To this meaning was added the sense of "permission or right to enter." Today the latter sense is the more common.
In 18th-century Britain "entree" also developed a distinct culinary sense. In those days the dining experience could be a test of one's stamina. A typical formal dinner might have merely as its principal courses soup, fish, meat and dessert. In addition, there were various side dishes, plus the salad and cheese courses. After the fish course and as a warm-up to the meat course - a roast, typically - came a small dish that was fancily concocted of several ingredients and often garnished and sauced.
In the words of one old-fashioned culinary manual, it was supposed to be "easy to eat and pleasing to the appetite but not satisfying." Because it was served immediately preceding the centerpiece of the whole meal - the roast - it was called the "entree," being, in effect, the "entrance" to the really important part of the meal.
As fashions and Anglo-American dining habits changed, meals gradually diminished in their elaborateness, and fewer and simpler courses were served. In the United States, however, the course following the appetizer course continued to be known as the "entree," even if it did turn out to be a roast. The now established practice of referring to the main course as the "entree" was apparently led by hotels and restaurants. Perhaps the original preference for "entree" lay in the fact that it was obviously French, and anything French was considered to have prestige.
Question: I was taught to use the word "enormousness" for large size and "enormity" for great wickedness. I find it irritating that the majority of writers these days seem to ignore this distinction.
Answer: The issue is actually more complicated than you might think. Real language often refuses to confine itself to neat categories. Many people believe as you do that the meaning of "enormity" should be restricted to its "great wickedness" sense, but when we look at the way educated speakers of English actually use the word, we find that "enormity" can also be used quite effectively and with great subtlety to suggest a number of other meanings.
"Enormity" regularly denotes a considerable departure from the expected or normal, as in "after the hurricane, the enormity of the situation set in." The word can also be used to emphasize the importance of an event or of its consequences, as in "the enormity of the war" or "the enormity of the destruction."
When "enormity" is used to refer to large size (the use that most bothers you), it usually suggests something so large as to be overwhelming, as in "the enormity of the Grand Canyon" and "the enormity of the problem of the homeless." "Enormity" can also suggest both great size and deviation from morality, as in "the enormity of the world's stockpiles of nuclear wea-pons."
We understand your desire to keep "enormity" distinct from "enormousness," and we think the prudent writer (or speaker, for that matter) should be aware that use of "enormity" in its disputed senses is liable to attract criticism. There is no denying, though, that the use of "enormity" to mean "enormousness" has long been established in our language, and it is therefore duly recorded in our dictionaries.