So much for my national characteristics theory. I'm relieved, really.
I try to cultivate equanimity regarding new usages, though not always successfully. Of course, I would never use "myriad" as an adjective, but I'm reconciled to the fact that it is on the way to becoming one. It's the way of the world, and language is a phenomenon of the world, a creature of the flux - much as we might like it resemble the account in the Cratylus. So, I've no problem at all with "impact" - because, after all, what would you say instead? "Affect"? But that too was a noun before it was an adjective.
"Prey" is an interesting one. I'm not sure that "the gazelle is prey to the lion" is an adjectival use at all: maybe it's more like "Soldiers are cannon-fodder to generals". However, from that kind of phrase the segue into a full adjectival use is almost inevitable.
The one thing I do jib at is usages that reduce the range of available shades of meaning. Thus the tendency to use "refute" to mean "deny", or "infer" to mean "imply", both irritate me.
no subject
I try to cultivate equanimity regarding new usages, though not always successfully. Of course, I would never use "myriad" as an adjective, but I'm reconciled to the fact that it is on the way to becoming one. It's the way of the world, and language is a phenomenon of the world, a creature of the flux - much as we might like it resemble the account in the Cratylus. So, I've no problem at all with "impact" - because, after all, what would you say instead? "Affect"? But that too was a noun before it was an adjective.
"Prey" is an interesting one. I'm not sure that "the gazelle is prey to the lion" is an adjectival use at all: maybe it's more like "Soldiers are cannon-fodder to generals". However, from that kind of phrase the segue into a full adjectival use is almost inevitable.
The one thing I do jib at is usages that reduce the range of available shades of meaning. Thus the tendency to use "refute" to mean "deny", or "infer" to mean "imply", both irritate me.