Deceived by Definitions

I was doing some vocabulary words today, donating a bit of starch on the Free Rice site, and decided to keep track of definitions I saw that varied from what I had thought the words meant.

While I actually got most of these right by process of elimination (since standardized tests always want you to pick the best answer, not necessarily the correct answer), it amuses and somewhat amazes me how many words I originally "learned" from reading in context without ever looking them up. And now I find out that the meaning I have always associated them with is not strictly correct:

• apocryphal -- defined as false. My understanding was always more like based on slight or spurious evidence. So while something that is apocryphal might be false, it actually is more accurate to say that its accuracy is doubtful or rests on shaky information.
  
• effete -- defined as decadent. Okay, I see that decadence is one of the words used in the dictionary for effete, but the other word that is also used is "weakness," which is the one that I remembered. Of course, the phrase that comes to mind is "effete snob" and I remember being bewildered that "weak snob" had such a resonant meaning that the phrase would be used often enough for me to have heard it more than once. And, of course, I come from a generation that associates "decadent" more with "chocolate cake" than we do with "decay." (Except perhaps tooth decay.)
  
• obstreperous -- defined as noisy. In my mind's eye, an obstreperous person is either drunk or perhaps a young boy. And while either one would probably be noisy, I think associate the term more with the concept of "unruliness" than just plain noisy. Webster's says "marked by unruly or aggressive noisiness." So I'm not really wrong... definitely a case of the best answer, rather than the complete answer.
  
• frisson -- defined as thrill. This is one of those words that you use to sound more educated than you really are. I could swear I've heard this used in constructions like "served with a frisson of lemon grass" or some such ingredient. So I thought it meant something like "hint" or "sprinkling." But no... Webster's does give the definition as "thrill" or "shudder." So I guess I got my contextual connotation from some damn copywriter whose metaphor got copied and corrupted. I frisson to think of it.
  
• bowdlerize -- defined as expurgate. Okay, I got this one right, but I had always had a stronger association with the idea that bowdlerization destroys the text and makes it not worth reading, rather than specifically removing parts of it to cleanse it of immorality.
  
• dudgeon -- defined as resentment. In my experience, this word is only heard in the phrase "high dudgeon," usually involving old ladies, as in, "Aunt Mabel was in a state of high dudgeon." I see from Webster's can actually be "in a dudgeon" since its definition emphasizes that dudgeon is a "fit" of angry indignation, usually based on opposition. Which doesn't really equal resentment, in my book.
  
• arrogate -- defined as seize, which appears to be 100 percent correct. I must confess that I just never really knew what this one meant. I know I've read it, but can't come up with an example.
  
• contumely -- defined as insolence. I only ever heard this in Hamlet ("Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely") and so really had no idea what it actually meant. "Insolence" is pretty close to Webster's "rude language arising from haughtiness or contempt." Contumely appears to be directly related to another Free Rice vocabulary favorite, tumescent. I always get that one right.
  
• invidious -- defined as offensive. I'm probably confusing this with "insidious," but who can blame me. But I had thought of "invidious" as more active, like negative thoughts creeping into your subconscious. Webster's gives us this: "Tending to cause discontent, animosity, or envy." It actually derives from the Latin for envy. Which again seems a bit different than just "offensive." More subtle and even... insidious.