snip > > but who > >cares. Language is subjective, like all things. > > Oh, how splendid! An argument! > > <rubs hands together with glee> > snip > It seems to me that language, while often subjective, has an objective > element insofar as it is shared. snip > 1) The more any given group agrees on the meaning of a word, the better > they are able to exchange ideas. > 2) The more we have words available that make clear, nice distinctions, the > more precisely, elegantly, and, ultimately, creatively we are able to think. > All true, I think, but consider street lingo. Example: Wack. The first time I ever heard wack used it had a positive connotation (mid 80s). "That song is wack!" meaning it was "da bomb", or good. However, today, wack is negative. Street language continually evolves, almost like a code. These words filter into the language in general and are changed again, losing many of their more subjective connotations and taking on a more concrete form. But still, those forms are driven by their usage and popularization on the street. There are east-coast hip-hop words that have exactly the opposite meaning on the west-coast. This, I think, is healthy, and necessary, to keep the language healthy. In France they say "un hotdog", or "une dollar", but in Quebec, where they protect their language like a dog protects her young, they insist on francophed versions. This is not healthy, but I digress. I guess my point is that I think language is wonderfully subjective, especially English. Take the conceits of John Donne or Shakespeare as examples. Without the subjectivity of our language, "The Flea" would simply be a poem about two lovers bitten by a common pest. Add a dram of subjectivity and voila, we have a conceit within which Donne is seducing his mistress by comparing the mixing of their blood within the beast to the mixing of other "fluids". And he was a minister too! Naughty fellow.