Starshadw at aol.com writes: > In a message dated Fri, 16 Aug 2002 5:12:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, skzb at dreamcafe.com writes: > > > I am suggesting that English is already so well supplied with imprecise > > formulations that adding more is absurd. Introducing changes that make it > > easy and natural to be imprecise is not something I can > > conceive as being a > > positive change. > Out of curiosity, Steve, are you desiring English to be a dead > language, where it no longer evolves or adds new constructs and > words at all? This is not a facetious question, but an honest one. > Because that's the impression I'm starting to get, so I thought I'd > ask and if it isn't what you want, you can clarify what it is you DO > want and remove my confusion. Then you're not paying attention. He's explicitly talked about supporting certain kinds of changes, *and* he's explicitly acknowledged that changes happen without his consent from time to time. What more do you want? Any arbitrary change to be automatically supported? That you won't be getting, from Steven *or* me. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info