At 11:10 PM 8/15/2002 -0400, Mark A Mandel wrote: >#"Cab", however, is not the same word as "cabriolet", merely a word >#*descended from* it. Our use of "cab" is no hindrance to people >#wishing to use "cabriolet" to refer to what it still, in fact, refers >#to. > >But when "cab" was first extended to what is now its sole meaning (as >far as road vehicles go), people surely objected just as you're >objecting to the extension of "hopefully". Were they right? Is it your position that because people objected to certain changes that later proved useful, all objections to changes are bound to prove useful? I don't think that argument will hold up. I don't remember anyone stating that language either does not or ought not to change. Is it your position that all changes to the language should be instantly approved of and used by everyone when they first enter? My position can be expressed as follows: Some changes to the language make it more flexible, powerful, and precise. Other changes make the language more rigid, weak, and vague. I support the former by employing the new usages as they occur, and oppose the latter by not using them, and by objecting to them when they happen to come up as a subjects of conversation. What is your position?