But unfortunately, merely defining soilin the purely scientific sense won't help its susceptibility to false advertising. 
The article introduced a company called Soilutions that specializes in mass compost production. Here, the natural sound of the word has been fitted with a new ending to imply "solutions to soil problems." This marketing hook relies on the scientific, rather than negative, associations of the word soil. However unfortunate it may be, I believe that it is better to eliminate the disgusting implications of soilin the vulgar sense, then to go the other way and define it by them. So, as much as it pains me to admit it, this flagrant misuse of words must simply be borne.
you see, Mr. Editor, that it is not necessary to radically change the meaning of any words, but merely to limit them to appropriate definitions. My next idea may sound a bit odd, but once I explain it all, I'm sure you'll agree with me. Landis another chronically confusing word. It can mean a country, as in "fatherland" and the popular song, "This land is your land/ This land is my land." Or simply a particular area, as in, "He possessed a deed to that land." The title, "The Land Ethic" seems fairly innocuous (Leopold 618). In this case the word landis being used to indicate a general area, i.e. those places in the world that are threatened by industry. But overall, landhas no deep meaning that makes it an indispensable word. It means an area, nothing more. So I believe that its place could be quite adequately, and more precisely, filled by such words as country, region, field or plain. This would mean that landwould be used only in its verb form. According to your very own Dictionary of Synonyms, "to land" means "to set down" as in the landing of an airplane or a balloon.
By defining land only as a verb, you would be encouraging a general, and long overdue, spring cleaning of the English language, and you would be helping a great many students as well.
From many long years of drilling proper grammar into children's heads, I know that one of the main problems students encounter in learning grammar is the inconsistency of English nouns and verbs. If the exact same form of a word can be used as a noun or a verb or an adjective, with very different meanings I might add, identifying parts of speech becomes an obstacle course of rules and exceptions. Diagramming would be so much simpler, both to teach and to learn, if every word could be used only as a single part of speech. So instead of worrying whether land is the subject or predicate of a sentence, the child could simply memorize the type of word, in this case predicate, and be on his way to more important things, like poetry appreciation.
Now, whereas above I suggested eliminating the noun form of a word, here I'll suggest that the verb form be removed. Groundis a singularly uninspiring word. It is a neutral word, having neither definite positive or negative associations. Groundseems to mean only and always one thing, "the foundation on which people stand."(55) Another wonderful short story by Barbara Kingsolver illustrates this perfectly. In "New Year's Day" she speaks of, "..rising up from the ground...burrowed in the ground...crawl out of the ground" (176).
I can find no outside connotations except the idea of stability here. Thus, because this word is so neutral, it must be defined only in this way to protect this neutrality. Groundhas no mind-controlling influences like 'dirt.' It simply means what it says.
Unfortunately, it also has a verb form. "To be grounded" in something, as I'm sure you're aware since you seem to be very well grounded in your field, means to be knowledgeable about a subject, or again according to your excellent dictionary, "to teach a foundation" or "teach the basis of a subject." These other meanings merely seem to clutter up the innocence of ground. They are easily expressed by other words, and thus ground could be simply refocused to mean only, "the surface on which we walk."
So you see, Mr. Editor, that eliminating partial definitions of words can be very beneficial. But I'm afraid that I found no redeeming value in any forms of the word dirt. Usually it only used in a vulgar or shocking fashion. "Kids Love Dirt!" is the headline of a site on the World Wide Web. 
What is your first reaction to this? It could refer to children's use of expletives, or interest in scandalous gossip, or simply in the tendency of children to dirty their clothes. The next line explains the title by stating that dirt is, "The Natural Environment for Play." The word dirt, however, is only used in the opening and closing statements, "Dirt attracts kids," and, "So kids not only love dirt, dirt is good for them!" This statement, at first glance, sounds like a new and radical pronouncement, but it really only says what every parent already knows: kids like to get dirty. Once the title has caught the reader's interest, the writers' switch to less loaded language.
Now, this bait and switch is one of the most odious practices of the media, and it could be completely short-circuited, at least in this instance, if the word dirt was eliminated from English entirely! Now, before you think I've completely gone over to the liberals and a 1984-like scenario, let me reassure you that I've seriously researched this. and there is no reason not to simply delete dirtfrom the English language. There doesn't need to be a big to-do over it, just don't include it anywhere in your next edition of the Dictionary of Synonyms.
I'm sure, Mr. Editor, that you will be hailed as a prophet and savior of English from the degradation that has befallen it if you implement a few of my modest proposals. 
If even one person of note takes the first step, the path will be open to the elimination of all the nasty, rude, vulgar and disgusting words. They would be wiped from the face of the language. Just consider, Mr. Editor, that once the word for an idea is gone, the idea becomes diminished to. Imagine never having to see indecent graffiti again! Never being confronted by vulgar song lyrics, never hear a child curse. It would be a return to innocence for both our language and our culture. So I ask you to please seriously consider incorporating these ideas into your next edition. I'm sure future generations, and well as I, will thank you for eliminating from our society these dirty words.
Sincerely,
Ms. Tera Minitrue
