Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> writes: > And it is worth mentioning that some dictionaries are more willing > accept changes than others. My American Heritage dictionary does not > agree with Miriam-Webster about what "nauseous" means. Certainly, > when we insist on the more precise, useful term we are fighting a > rear-guard action, and are probably doomed. But I consider it a fight > worth waging anyway. I'd have to disagree that the older meaning of "nauseous" is either more precise or more useful. It seems to me that both meanings are about equally precise, just different. And if it was more useful in its older role, it would probably have stayed in it. It's not as if it filled some linguistic niche which is now vacant -- the concept can be expressed perfectly well with "nauseating". -- Mike Scott