Steve said: > 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? > I can't argue against the need for precise language. There are words like "denude", which means "to strip". Figure that one out. Almost as if a 'word' like "dethaw" had been accepted into general usage. (No doubt someone will look it up for me). These words could be seen as a weakening of the language, because they tend to promote confusion. However, determining whether a word is evolving or devolving is tough, even when tracing etymology. And, IMHO, subjective ; ) But isn't ambiguity what makes English so delicious? (and incidentally so difficult for non-English speakers to learn). I don't completely agree with Steve that having words evolve (or devolve) into forms that function in a less precise manner is a weakening of the language. Oh, I guess I agree in principle, but English is a whore who has had many lovers, and this is where her strength lies. She keeps souvenirs. And this is where we get double entendre, innuendo, hyperbole and scads of other devices that cajole the reader to make connections, read between the lines and truly absorb what they are reading; interpret it and make it their own. The French revel in ambiguity of phrase, and there's nothing so sweet as an insult delivered that momentarily goes over your victim's head. Gives you a moment to think up another one. A rose by any other name... And of course a dog is a dog, but maybe I'm not referring to a canine or mutt or bitch or pooch or, oh, well, hopefully you get the idea.