Relying only on dictionaries to understand how a word was understood in the recent past is the equivalent of placing one's hand on a sick child's forehead to gauge temperature instead of the electronic thermometer that is in your drug cabinet. (1)
The New York Times index is free and readily searchable. To understand quickly Fitzgerald's possible intentions of his 1925 employment of "holocaust" (referencing the deaths of Gatsby and Wilson) search "holocaust" in that index for some appropriate time period.
Searching June 1 1923 to June 1 1927 produces thirty "holocausts", most reference war or an aspect of war but the range of referents is rather wide e.g.:
"5,000 SONGBIRDS PERISH IN A FIRE ... The roosters kept crowing all through the bird holocaust." [March 16 1926]
"7 YANK RUNS IN 8TH BURY RED SOX ... It was a nice little holocaust, with the Yanks scoring seven runs in one inning." [May 31 1927]
The Library of Congress has a free - somewhat awkward - searchable index of hundreds of US newspapers with a cut off date of 1924. To access that index google search >Chronicling America<.
Random 'finds' from the hundreds of "holocausts" employed in American newspapers in 1922:
"... another word war would be the most appalling holocaust since the beginning of time." [May 26 1922, Seattle Star]
And "... the approach of the Christmas holidays has come to mean ... a commercial holocaust." [Dec 13 1922, Seattle Star]
Footnote (1):
Dictionaries are not to be trusted on word history or use.
The 1989 Oxford English Dictionary's entry "holocaust" does not mention the employment of "holocaust" in the early 1960's as THE referent to the then actively feared nuclear destruction.
("Stevenson ... asked whether such blunders might not 'carelessly, accidentally, trigger the holocaust.' The former Democratic Presidential candidate, in an address to the Conference on World Tension" --- New York Times Index, May 13 1960)
And: The Oxford Dictionary leaves the impression that "holocaust's" earliest employments referenced almost entirely sacrifices to the Judeo-Christian god and that such "authorized" holocausts swamped any referents of the word to pagan sacrifices --- both in the past and in modern usage.
Yet an educated Protestant English speaker in the period 1600-1940 would have encountered "H/holocaust" as a referent to a pagan sacrifice in Latin and Greek texts but never in a Protestant Bible. Two classical pagan holocausts: 1) "With Holocausts he Pluto's altar fills." (Dryden's 1697 translation of the Aeneid, Book VI) And 2) "Jupiter opposes you ... you have neglected to ... offer ... a holocaust." (Smith's 1827 translation of Xenophon's Anabasis, p. 540 -- Xenophon's "holocaust" is the earliest recorded employment of the word (c. 365 BCE); and Xenophon's Anabasis is probably the most read text by students of classical Greek.
A significant modern "holocaust" in its pagan sense: "For him [Eli Wiesel] ... God is dead ... the God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob ... has vanished forevermore ... in the smoke of a human holocaust exacted by Race, the most voracious of all idols." (From Francois Mauriac's introduction to Wiesel's NIGHT (1960) -- Mauriac received the Nobel for literature in the 1950's, Wiesel picked up a Nobel for peace in the 1980's. Wikipedia reports 6 million copies of NIGHT had been sold in the USA by 2011.)
(The above few paragraphs of the footnote are largely drawn from the appendix of the web article on the word holocaust mentioned in earlier posting. The appendix critiques the Oxford Dictionary's "holocaust" entry in some detail. For the article and its appendix google >Petrie word holocaust<)
As Wittgenstein put it,
Meaning is one of the words of which one may say that they have odd jobs in our language ... What causes most trouble in philosophy is that we are tempted to describe the use of important "odd-job" words as though they were words with regular functions.
As it happens, only what linguists call lexical words have meanings. Many other words don't
have meanings so much as they have uses. They're basically part of the grammatical rebar
that's supporting all those meaningful lexical words in the sentence.
They're machinery, these words, and they don't have any meaning. So it's pointless to argue.
Words like the and of and there and than; and, most relevantly, be, in all its forms, in many uses.
The overwhelming majority of occurrences of be in English come from one of four constructions:
- auxiliary verb for the Progressive construction: Bill was leaving at 5.
- auxiliary verb for the Passive construction: Bill was shot at 5.
- auxiliary verb for all predicate adjectives: Bill is sick/dead/here/hungry/tall.
- auxiliary verb for all predicate nouns: This is rock. This is a rock. These are rocks.
Furthermore, even when be is the only verb in the sentence, it still behaves like an auxiliary verb.
- He is going ~ Is he going?
(auxiliary verb undergoes subject-auxiliary inversion in question)
- This is the one she saw. ~ Is this the one she saw?
(this be also behaves like an auxiliary)
In fact, no form of be behaves like a real lexical verb, and therefore it has no lexical meaning.
Speakers of languages without a copula, about half the people in the world, aren't surprised.
Best Answer
Meanwhile may be used to start a sentence, but not in the way you have attempted.
“I was absent with illness. Meanwhile, my colleagues dealt with my emails”. Meanwhile here refers to the period during which I was ill.
Meanwhile =
Meanwhile has the connotation that something else is, was, or will be happening; during does not.
You have used the word as if it were synonymous with during; this is incorrect usage.