On 15 Aug 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: #Oops, saw this in direct email without the list in the headers, so #I've already replied privately. So you'll see something like this #twice Mark, sorry. My fault, actually, because I didn't hit "reply to all" and had to forward to the list. Some other lists I'm on have a "Reply-to:" in the header, and I'm used to that. #> 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? # #Depends if the technology was more important (that particular kind of #carriage needed to keep its own special name and the abbreviation #thereof) or if the use was more important (a name was needed to refer #to for-hire vehicles). Given the ongoing importance of small #two-wheel carriages, I think a sensible choice was made. And given the apparent importance to many people of being able to express an optimistic prediction concisely, and since that use does not cause confusion with the older use, I think the sentence adverb "hopefully" is a sensible creation. BTW -- I love this discussion TOO MUCH. I am going to drop out of it very soon, and maybe all OT: discussions on this list; it is taking way too much of my time. :-( [Mark M, ironically] #> Oh, dear, shouldn't they be inventing new words? Or am I confusing your #> position with Steve's or someone else's? # #What's being done doesn't make the existing words less useful, so it's #not against *my* principle's. Or Steven's either if I understand that #right. One of the reasons I like them so well is that they clearly #represent play by highly-literate people. They build on and work with #the existing meanings, rather than clashing with them. I agree. The play is clear to those of us who understand it. "Cookie? Gimme cookie!" -- Mark A. Mandel