Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI Grammar and Spelling Lab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (1925)	3/1/1999 11:25:00 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

Yes, language changes. It is natural and right that it do so. BUT, not all change is for the good. IMO, the test should be whether a) a proposed change is necessary or is more the result of laziness in not learning the existing language thoroughly first, and b) whether the change makes the language more useful, more accurate, more precise, more interesting, and more beautiful. For example, the trend toward the interchangility of infer and imply loses a clear and useful distinction and adds nothing useful. It is a simple matter of refusing to learn (or failing to have been taught) proper usage. However, email is a new word which is useful, accurate, and indeed virtually necessary. I use it regularly, even though it does not yet appear in any dictionary I use. The problem, as I see it, is how to embrace "good" changes while gathering the forces together to reject "bad" changes.