> The problem is that for every evolving "rule", > you reduce (or have the potential to reduce) > the clarity of the message. -- I respectfully disagree. If

> The problem is that for every evolving "rule", > you reduce (or have the potential to reduce) > the clarity of the message. -- I respectfully disagree. If we refused to accept colloquial usage of a word as valid, we would actually be reducing meaning therein. Would you advocate using archaic definitions of common words from 100 years ago? 200 years ago? How about we maintain this purported clarity by reverting to Middle English? I used to be anal toward the definition of words until I got a little older. Then I realized that, over time, language does indeed evolve. Here's a good example for you. "The web." If we didn't accept the "evolved" definition of this word as a synonym for "the Internet," then the statement "Catch Hacker News on the web!" would be nonsensical. You can be a purist to a degree, but to declare that such an approach improves clarity is a bit... misguided. :) (I'll grant that you did suggest it has the "potential to," but I want to assist in preventing others from making broad generalizations against the evolution of language, so this isn't necessarily directed to you.)