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).