[wpietri]

The problem isn't gaining meanings; it's losing them. If unique becomes a synonym for unusual, then we no longer have a word that means unique.

I think these battles are worth fighting. As does Weird Al: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w

[danellis]

I don't know why Weird Al thought that was necessary, but this supposed less vs fewer "rule" does not describe actual modern or historical usage. Self-appointed grammarians can choose to stick to whatever usage they like, but going around with stickers and marker pens only makes them look like pedantic bores.

[wpietri]

Huh. So now you're against new meanings?

[danellis]

No. I'm saying it's fine for people to stick to the usage they prefer, which may organically bring about a change, but there's no need to be critical of other people for using what is a commonly understood usage.

[wpietri]

Well in that case, you're wrong. There is a need, and it's to have words for meanings. Language is a commons, and we all get to discuss how it's used.

[danellis]

"commonly understood usage"

That means they do have meaning. I'm sorry if you had trouble understanding the meaning of the words in the post. I think everyone else got it, though.

[wpietri]

You misread what I wrote. I'm not talking about words having meanings. I'm talking about having words for meanings.