Repeated message, because I accidentally replied only to Stacy the first time: At 09:20 AM 8/16/2002 -0400, Starshadw at aol.com wrote: >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. I'm not certain how many times I'm supposed to answer this. No. I am aware that language changes. I reserve the right to consider some changes good, and use them; and to consider other changes bad, and avoid using them, and even object to them under certain circumstances.