What’s wrong with the following paragraph from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9x33z8nzpo?
The day was extraordinary in its normalcy, given the chaos of four years before. Harris stood at the front of the US House chamber with a sombre expression as lawmakers read out each state's election results before formally declaring their authenticity.
Ambiguity. Who or what is declared authentic? The ambiguity would not exist if the word "results" had been singular, as it could well have been - there was only one election (of the Electoral College) in each state. Of course, had it been singular, it would be the lawmakers being declared authentic, probably not what is intended!
Otherwise nothing, or nothing much.
Fowler's has an interesting entry on "normalcy".
Apparently "normalcy", "normality" and "normalness" all entered the language in the middle of the 19th century. Even the word "normal" did not acquire its present meaning until about 1840. Before then, since 17th century, it just referred to rectangles and perpendiculars.
As far as "normalcy" is concerned, its use in British English is "rare (and disliked)", but in North America, especially USA, it is the more frequent form. In Indian and East Asian English "normalcy" is, as it were, the norm.
"Normalness" has not caught on anywhere.
Another point: How can something "extraordinary" be "normal"?
See also https://english.stackexchange.com/quest … -ridiculed
