Question's for God.

[Arkilogue]

I don't.  I believe in grammatical creation (). In other words if you need a new description, make a new word or composite word.  In todays "grammatical evolution" the word 'literally' now has a definition that is the exact opposite of literal. "That art piece literally took my breath away."

What you are talking about isn't the evolution of language.  It's the acceptance of linguistic democracy, even when the majority of a culture (I'm talking specifically about American English speakers) are uneducated morons.

This is not evolutionary, it's revolutionary.  "The word doesn't mean that.  Still doesn't mean that.  Okay, I guess enough idiots have used the word that way, let's put it in the dictionary."

Thanks for the details, but it sounds like the telephone game that never get backs around the circle.

I prefer original objective meanings as intended by the original users/makers of words. But of course also allow room for what ever people want to mean subjectively. How else would I see the change/growth/loss of conceptualization through time? How else will I know how I've been influenced by roots hidden under the surface of the past?