Prince, You're right on the money on this issue. The essence of communication is understanding. So, when the majority of one's audience are forced to consult a dictionary often, then one hoists himself/herself to his/her own petard - so to speak. Some of us who love flowery language, would not mind sacrificing that weakness in the interest of catering to a more-inclusive audience. For that reason, I join you in exhorting my friends to be more sensitive to the fact that most members of the List are not on their level. However, you may want to be mindful of the fact that some could use your very constructive criticism as a pretext to take pot shots at others. I hope you don't play into their hands. What you've said, and OB's addendum have expressed the majority sentiment, I believe. I'll advice you to leave it at that. You've made a very valid point. There's no need to expound on it, lest someone/people begin feeling under siege for using "literary licenses," 'cause some of the word-alteration fall under that category in my view. My humble opinion. Thanks for raising the issue anyway. Saul. >From: Prince Obrien-Coker <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Good English or Poepi-Nak? Part 1 >Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 19:34:19 +0100 > >TO ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE GAMBIA LIST > >"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. >If what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------