Question: I'm 44 and don't feel "middle-aged." What is the definition of "middle age" these days?
Answer: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines "middle age" as "the period of life from about 40 to about 60." With average life expectancy in this country at about 75, there's no reason 40 shouldn't logically be considered middle age. You might call 40-60 "clinical" middle age, if you like, to be differentiated from "social" middle age, which could depend on factors such as attitude and lifestyle.
Although popular usage has not yet abandoned the term "middle-aged" in reference to 40-somethings, it's not unpopular to wax philosophical about middle-agedness being only in the minds of the young. You certainly need never refer to yourself as middle-aged if you are not so inclined, but you might want to allow yourself at least a short stint as a middle-ager before you join the ranks of the senior citizens.
Question: I was taught to avoid the verb "meld," meaning "to blend or merge," which, as I learned it, is not really a word at all but rather a pure and simple mistake, and I was absolutely certain that my criticism was solid. I was therefore extremely surprised to discover recently that "meld" is entered and defined in the dictionary. Am I the one who's been mistaken all these years?
Answer: The word "meld" is a relatively recent coinage, formed as a blend of "melt" and "weld." The editors at Merriam-Webster first encountered this word in 1936 and by 1939 had gathered enough evidence to be satisfied that the word was established in standard use. In that year, "meld" appeared in the New Words Section of our unabridged dictionary, and it has been included in our dictionaries ever since.
Like many new and newly popular words, "meld" has attracted a fair amount of impassioned opposition. Critics of "meld" often assume it is a misuse of another, older word used by card players. The older "meld" means "to declare or announce (a card or cards) for a score in a card game (as pinochle or gin rummy)." But the new "meld" is actually an entirely new coinage, and it is in no way a misuse of the older word.
The continuing popularity of "meld," despite the criticism, probably has a lot to do with the way that its sound so nicely reflects its meaning. "Meld" suggests a smooth and thorough blending of two or more things into a single, homogeneous whole. Although some people, like you, clearly still regard this word with disapproval, it has been used in reputable writing for years, and dictionaries have long recognized it as standard. We see no reason to avoid this useful word.
Question: How did an elephant's proboscis come to be called a "trunk"? Especially considering that one of the first meanings given in my dictionary for "trunk" is "the torso of an animal."
Answer: "Trunk" is a word that has had dozens of meanings through-out its history. The two meanings you mention aren't as far apart as they might seem. Several senses of "trunk," all related and now obsolete, are the missing link between the earlier "torso" sense and the later "proboscis" sense. Three of these senses are: "a cylindrical case to contain or discharge explosives or combustibles"; "a pipe used as a speaking-tube or ear-trumpet"; and "a hollow tube from which a dart or pellet is shot by blowing" (definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary).
You can probably see how an instrument like a blowgun or ear trumpet came to be called a "trunk" - after all, the tube of a blowgun can be seen as the body, or "torso," of the instrument itself. At the same time, these "trunks" are long and hollow, qualities that they share with the proboscis of an elephant. All these senses were current in the 16th century, which was when the "elephant's proboscis" sense of "trunk" was first recorded.