[ExI] !,. $#@%

[Mike Dougherty]

On 5/26/07, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> No, because it doesn't--it's ambiguous, which is why the word should
> be, and largely was, replaced. Here are some "in-" words that quite
> clearly don't mean "not-":
>
> incarcerate doesn't mean "to set free"
>
> incorporate doesn't mean "to discorporate" or exclude from the body
>
> inculcate, induce, indigene, indicate, inspire
>
> Wanna ban them as well? :)

No.  I was pointing at banning words as an absurd impossibility, (or
even trying to convince others of 'proper' use.)  Language evolves.  I
don't think I'll be adopting every word in the Dr. Seuss lexicon, but
I have picked up new idioms as they cross my path.

Trimming the language to fewer select words smacks of 1984 (yes, the
Orwellian 1984, not the nostalgic 23 year old 1984 :)