In fairness, even this just seems like those two authors are the only ones using this term in this way, almost like they intentionally chose a word to specifically use in a way that didn’t agree with the way everyone understands it.
Further, I don’t think it’s tricky reasonable to be snotty about it when you’re choosing to use the term in this one very specific, abnormal way without explaining why.
Like…they might just as well have called their book Chocolatey Cycles. Most people wouldn’t make the connection unless they were familiar with the work, and would think that it’s a typo or other error.
Simply put, your referencing this work doesn’t make me think “Oh! They were actually right about the word!”, rather, it makes me think, “Oh…they, and the authors of that book, were all wrong about the word.”
The etymology of the word secular from latin is “of a generation”. So while it is a non-standard use of the word, it can be used to refer to something that happens once in a generation or once in a large amount of time like a century.
c. 1300, seculer, in reference to clergy, “living in the world, not belonging to a religious order,” also generally, “belonging to the state” (as opposed to the Church), from Old French seculer, seculare (Modern French séculier) and directly from Late Latin saecularis “worldly, secular, pertaining to a generation or age,” in classical Latin “of or belonging to an age, occurring once in an age,” from saeculum “age, span of time, lifetime, generation, breed.” …
The ancient Roman ludi saeculares was a three-day, day-and-night celebration coming once in an “age” (120 years). Ecclesiastical writers in Latin used it as those in Greek did aiōn “of this world” (see cosmos). It is the source of French siècle “century.” The meaning “of or belonging to an age or a long period,” especially occurring once in a century, was in English from 1590s.
Generation is commonly used in the sense of a fairly short span of time, ~20 years. Secular cycle, googling quickly, seems to be using secular more in the ‘lifetime/age’ sense since the cycles are over the course of a couple centuries.
In fairness, even this just seems like those two authors are the only ones using this term in this way, almost like they intentionally chose a word to specifically use in a way that didn’t agree with the way everyone understands it.
Further, I don’t think it’s tricky reasonable to be snotty about it when you’re choosing to use the term in this one very specific, abnormal way without explaining why.
Like…they might just as well have called their book Chocolatey Cycles. Most people wouldn’t make the connection unless they were familiar with the work, and would think that it’s a typo or other error.
Simply put, your referencing this work doesn’t make me think “Oh! They were actually right about the word!”, rather, it makes me think, “Oh…they, and the authors of that book, were all wrong about the word.”
The etymology of the word secular from latin is “of a generation”. So while it is a non-standard use of the word, it can be used to refer to something that happens once in a generation or once in a large amount of time like a century.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular
https://www.etymonline.com/word/secular
Generation is commonly used in the sense of a fairly short span of time, ~20 years. Secular cycle, googling quickly, seems to be using secular more in the ‘lifetime/age’ sense since the cycles are over the course of a couple centuries.