Dragaera

OT: Subjectivity vs. Objectivity (was: bois...)

Thu Aug 15 11:25:59 PDT 2002

Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> writes:

> Uh...that is clearly not the case.  There was already a word for the
> other, "nauseating."  Now, if we accept Webster, there is no single
> word that means what "nauseous" used to mean.  Thus our language is
> now weaker, not stronger.

There have always been alternatives for *both* meanings of "nauseous";
nauseating and nauseated. "Nauseous" switching from one meaning to the
other has no particular affect on the language one way or the other.

> The argument that it changed therefore it is useful and good will not,
> I think, stand up to close examination.  To take the classic case,
> most people have now accepted "hopefully" to mean something vaguely
> like, "I hope," "you should hope," "we hope," and "all right thinking
> people ought to hope," all rolled into one.  It is less precise than
> any of those, and longer than half of them (what people usually mean
> is, "I hope" which is shorter).  And the older, more useful sense of,
> "with a hopeful attitude" is now difficult to say.  The change has
> pretty much happened, but I cannot imagine how it could be construed
> as improving the language.

Sure it could. There is clearly a linguistic niche for a gerundive
meaning "it is to be hoped". English doesn't *have* gerundives,
formally speaking, but the ever-adaptable English language has bolted
a secondary usage onto a little-used adverb in order to construct one
where it is formally not allowed. I can only see this as a strength,
and a useful adaptation that is to be encouraged (which last
construction is another place where a gerundive would come in useful,
although unfortunately there's no handy adverb that can be co-opted in
this instance).