Analysis Essay: Ubiquitous

While reading “A Word for Autumn” written by A.A. Milne, I came across the word ubiquitous. The way he used it was very interesting to me. I didn’t know what the word meant at first, so I looked it up. In the Oxford English Dictionary online, the definition reads: Present or appearing everywhere; omnipresent. The only synonym in the visual thesaurus online was omnipresent. Milne used ubiquitous in reference to grapes and apples. ‘For apples and grapes are not typical of any month, so ubiquitous are they…’ Really, apples and grapes appear everywhere? While I do have apples in my refrigerator at home on a regular basis, it is hard for me to imagine that grapes and apples are present everywhere on earth all the time. That seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. I was so distracted by the use of ubiquitous I completely forgot what the essay was about. I think Milne would have been better off using a different word, such as common. I believe the point the author was trying to convey is that those fruits do not go out of season, but the use of ubiquitous did not bring about the desired effect.
How could one really know if anything is present everywhere at once? One can’t possibly be everywhere at once, so can this word really ever be used correctly? Without the ability to see what might exist everywhere at once, it becomes impossible to determine if an item is truly ubiquitous. I would say one could describe air as being ubiquitous quite safely, but even then, as far as we know, there is no air beyond our own atmosphere, so is it truly ubiquitous?
How does this noble word, with such an important meaning, feel about the misuse of it? Should it be ashamed that people don’t use it correctly? Is it wishing it had a much simpler meaning like “common” and could actually fit in the many ways people use it? Maybe it is proud of its significant meaning. Maybe, it feels like people should educate themselves better and realize that there are very few things that are truly ubiquitous and quit throwing it into their phrases without considering the implication. It could be lonely, wondering why there are so few things that actually are ubiquitous, thus rending it useless more often than not. Maybe it wishes there could be more so he could get out more. He could be glad that he is misused so often so he has a chance to show up in writing about inconsequential things. I don’t know what the answer is, but I would sure like to ask it.
In the Mirriam Webster online dictionary, the definition is a little bit looser: existing or being everywhere at the same time: constantly encountered. If one were to use constantly encountered as the definition, there is a larger variety of ways to use ubiquitous. It can be used in reference to a popular fashion, a type of car, even a type of food, such as grapes or apples. But even with these examples, constantly is a word that means all the time. Which of course, means that whatever it is one would use ubiquitous to describe, one would be saying they encounter this thing all the time. Still quite an exaggeration.
When I think of ubiquitous, I think of only one being who can truly contemplate the meaning of. There is only one being who truly is ubiquitous. That being is God. He is everywhere at once, and while we can’t see him, he is there. It seems almost disrespectful to Him to even consider anything else ubiquitous. Sure, if one has a reference point, such as in reference to just our earth, there are plenty of things that are. The air as I mentioned before, dirt, the basic make up of the earth is omnipresent. Anywhere you go on the planet; there is some form of dirt, whether it is sand, clay, silt, or mulch.
One example found in the Oxford English dictionary online is this: This fern appears to be ubiquitous in the moist woods and marshes. That would be a correct usage of the word. It implies that the fern is everywhere in the moistwoods and marshes. There really could be no argument to the use of the word here. One could witness that in fact the fern was everywhere in the woods and marshes at once. I’m glad there are some people who have found a correct use of the word even if that sentence comes from a publication in 1840.

*Disclaimer: Please be aware that I am doing some serious revision to this paper. This is a very rough draft.