Titled vs. Entitled

Both meanings of "entitled" are established. In my experience, "entitled" in the sense of "named" is mostly British usage. In North American English, "titled" seems to be preferred.

Both meanings are acceptable according to Oxford Dictionaries Online. And Online Etymology Dictionary gives the meaning of 'to give a title to a chapter or book' as actually being older (14th C) than the meaning of entitling somebody to something (15th C), so if anything the change has gone the other way. Dave may well be right because I think I (BrE) would be more inclined to say a book or film was entitled "Bla Bla Bla' than titled 'Bla Bla Bla'.

Once again, we see the case of a longer word taking the place of a shorter word that does make sense and is unambiguous.
As Dr. McCoy said to Commander Spock, "Where is the logic in that?"

Personally, I cannot see the reason for overlooking the question of "efficient" vs. "inefficient". Why should someone going back to dig in the 14trh century when RIGHT NOW we should know which one is efficient and which is inefficient?

It is seen that in American English, we do have a stronger trend toward efficient expressions than inefficient ones, though I am impatient and I do not see it happening rapidly enough.

Calling the place "THE WHITE HOUSE" was a big step by eleminating "The President's Mansion" and other similar ones.
D.A.W.

@D.A.W. Wood - I 'dug back into the 14th century' because thebestcook seemed to think that 'entitled' was a recent interloper, when in fact it was the older word for this meaning. I wasn't disparaging the use of 'titled', only defending the use of 'entitled'. You of course have a choice, but why try and force that choice on others?

I suppose you never say 'enormous' or 'gigantic', but only 'huge'. And if you take this efficiency to its logical conclusion, we'd all be going round grunting words of one syllable; they're certainly efficient.

Personally I would say - Jane wrote a book called - ‘How to win at the lottery’ and wouldn't use either 'entitled' or 'titled', but that's simply my choice.

For those interested there's an article about 'entitle' at MWDEU - http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA401

@joelackey92 - so what you are basically saying is that the dictionaries have got it all wrong, or as you put it, are struggling with the differences. Is that it?

a satire entitled ‘The Rise of the Meritocracy’ (Oxford Dictionaries Online)
He entitled his book “My Life on Mars.” (Merriam-Webster Online)
to call by a particular title or name: What was the book entitled? (Dictionary.com)
to give a title to a book, poem, or piece of music - Her first novel was entitled More Innocent Times. (Macmillan Dictionary)
the book is entitled “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (Wordnik)
entitle - to give a title or name to (Webster's New World College Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary 4)
entitle - late 14c., "to give a title to a chapter, book, etc.," (Online Etymology Dictionary - the other meaning came a century later)

But I'm sure you know best. It's obviously so simple, and these dictionary writers are clearly all charlatans.

This isn't a case of misuse of language becoming acceptable, as some of you have been suggesting. In actuality, 'entitle' was used before 'title' in the sense of 'to give a title to'. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 'entitle' was first used in this sense in 1381, while 'title' was used in this sense in 1387. Both have long histories, and 'entitle' certainly has not become "acceptable misuse".

And as a matter of fact, you can say both, "Jane entitled a book..." and, "Jane has a book entitled...". In the first quote, Jane gave a book a title. In the second, Jane gave a book which has been given (previously, and perhaps not by Jane) a title. The difference is one of active vs. passive voice.