At 08:57 PM 8/15/2002 +0100, Mike Scott wrote: >Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> writes: > > > Why? That is, what does "it is to be hoped" mean? It is to be hoped > > by *whom*? By persons unknown? Why say that? By you? Then say, "I > > hope." By me? Then say, "You should hope." By all right-thinking > > people? Then say that. Why this insistence on vagueness? > >Vagueness is one of the uses of language, which is full of >constructions that allow one to be precise about the bits you *want* >to be precise about, and imprecise where it doesn't matter. It's also >quite useful to be able to express the concept using three syllables >rather than the twelve required for "it is to be hoped by all >right-thinking people". No insult intended, but, nonsense. It is *easy* to be vague. We have no trouble being vague. "Thing." "Stuff." "Kind of." "Tends toward." "Sort of." The challenge lies in precision. We do not have to make changes in English because the language is crying out for ways in which we can be less precise. The argument that one requires dull tools as well as sharp ones in the kitchen is not sufficient explanation for why you took the edge off my chef's knife. The reason you don't say, "All right-thinking people should hope" is because you don't really mean that. Well, do you? Uh, what exactly *do* you mean when you say, "Hopefully Dan will not try to drive after all the drinking he's done"? Generally, you mean, "I hope." Which is, by the way, shorter than "hopefully." Again, to emphasize, my point is simply this--because a change has occurred in English, and is now accepted, does not make the change good and useful.