On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, Steven Brust wrote: #At 07:26 AM 8/15/2002 +0100, Mike Scott wrote: #>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. # #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. Come again? "Nauseous" used to be used with the meaning 'nauseating'. A person who felt nauseated would complain of feeling "sick". "Sick" now has a somewhat different meaning, at least in the US, and "nauseous" is now used most often with the meaning 'nauseated'. The old meaning of "nauseous" is still covered by "nauseating", or "sickening". #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. Ah, you don't like imprecision? You must be very unhappy with English, which, unlike German, fails to force its speakers to distinguish a male friend (Freund) from a female one (Freundin) and an intimate "you" (du) >from a polite one (Sie)... let alone Hebrew, which distinguishes male "you" (atah) from female "you" (at). --- Oh, but German *does* have a word that means just what the newer use of "hopefully" covers: hoeffentlich. #So, you want to completely swap the two meanings? I suppose that would #give us something, but, hitherto, it has not happened. And if it did, it #would be really ugly. "How are you today?" "I shouldn't have eaten the #dog, because I'm really nauseating." No, I don't think I like that. And nobody is proposing it AFAIK. -- Mark A. Mandel