On the subject of diagnoses

[thryn]

New York Times style: A disease is diagnosed. A person is not.

Common parlance: Kathryn was diagnosed with irritable editor syndrome.

Merriam-Webster:
transitive verb
1 a: to recognize (as a disease) by signs and symptoms
b: to diagnose a disease or condition in <diagnosed the patient>
2: to analyze the cause or nature of <diagnose the problem>
intransitive verb:
to make a diagnosis

Am I completely stupid, or does definition 1 b justify the "diagnosed with" construction?

And if I'm *not* completely stupid, does anyone know the origin of the Times' rule?

[VanderViking]

At first glance, it looks to me like definition 1b would be used with the patient as the object of the sentence.
Your example would not match the structure it shows, but something like:
Dr. Smith diagnosed Kathryn with irritable editor syndrome
would.
I may be reading too much into the definition, though.
In passing, I would note my Concise Canadian Oxford does not include a definition matching 1b from Merriam Webster. It's a 2005 book, so it should still be realtively up-to-date.

[editer]

"The Times' rule" has been around a long time. It reflects the established meaning of "diagnose". Many of us have been fighting against "definition 1b" for a long time. Some say the new meaning has won legitimacy. I'm not so sure.

At any rate, whatever style book is in use trumps the dictionary.

[thryn]

OK, so despite being included in our primary dictionary, the 1b sense is a recent permutation of the word, then?

If that's the case, that answers my question. Hooray! And now that I've gone off the rails trying to figure this one out, I'll be less likely to miss it in copy, regardless ...