There is a newspaper in the Los Angeles area that is well-known for mistakes.  Part of the fun of reading it is looking for typos in the headlines and story titles.  One wonders if anyone reads the thing before it’s printed – you know, like an editor or someone like that.  This week, one story about the night sky was titled “Venus and Jupitar. . .”

In any case, one of the better sports writers in this paper today contributed a story about last night’s basketball game.  The writer referred to a player who had just been traded to our team:

(I paraphrase here)  “Joe Dokes (the new player), Bob Smith’s (the departing player) erstwhile replacement, made his debut . . .”

“Erstwhile.”

I have to seriously wonder exactly what our writer meant by “erstwhile” here.  Did he mean “new” or “recent”?  Perhaps he meant “serious,” confusing “erstwhile” with “earnest.”  What did he mean?  Read it again.  I honestly can not figure out what he was going for.

Of one thing I am sure:  He didn’t mean “erstwhile.”

“Erstwhile” is an adverb or an adjective.  As an adverb, it means “at a former time,” or “formerly,” or “once.”  As an adjective, it’s “former,” or “onetime.”

It does not mean “new.”  It does not mean “earnest” (as in “serious” or “sincere,” which I suspect the writer was thinking of here), or “hard-working” or “well-intentioned.”  I’ve heard people use it incorrectly, intending it, I believe, to mean “esteemed,” “respectable,” “dependable,” “worthy,” and even “excellent.”

It does not mean “ersatz” (which is “artificial,” or “fake,” or “inferior substitute”).

I don’t know if this one is pretension, sarcasm or simple ignorance.  (Perhaps it’s all three.  It’s certainly the last.)

(Oh, and just for fun, here are a couple of synonyms for “erstwhile”:  “quondam” and “whilom.”  I’ve never heard either of them used incorrectly.)