Hello Christine It comes down to audience. According to the current (2010) Macquarie Online Dictionary, in Australia "alternative" is still a minority meaning of "alternate". Thus if you were writing for a general Australian audience, you would not use "alternate" if you meant "alternative". It would distract more readers than otherwise. But "alternate" is a transition word. All signs are that in 20 years, it will have one strong primary meaning: alternative. Then it would be fine to use it that way. There are always words in transition: "regular", "acronym", "viable", "disinterested", and so on. Careful writers writing for a general audience avoid these words at present because each has two strong primary meanings (and, unlike "however", there is no conventional way of indicating with punctuation which particular meaning you intend). Semantic change is simply unstoppable. We might seem to lose something when words change their primary meaning (and when a useful punctuation mark dies through non-use: the en dash, for example). But the English language is so rich of synonym, and so forgiving of neologisms, that something else will be available, or come along, to take its place. (For example, the comma came along to take the place of the virgule. And you can still use "impartial" in place of the transitioning "disinterested". ) I lament the moribund state of the en dash, because it really is (or was) a very useful punctuation mark. But there is really no point using it if your audience is unlikely to detect its subtle purpose. (Again, it comes back to why we write. If we write to communicate, and the en dash is no longer communicating, then don't use it.) I blame it on the designers of the keyboard. Keys for the en dash and the em dash would have been more useful than the keys now labelled "Break" and "Sys Reqd", which absolutely no-one uses. And so we have the hyphen (sometimes open and sometimes closed) used instead of the dashes. But even I will be using hyphens this way in, say, 10 years. It will have become conventional by then and to do otherwise would only distract the majority of my readers. As for your US correspondents who mix up the meanings of "fact" and "opinion", well, there will always be people who use language unconventionally (deliberately or through ignorance). They're not, though, using language incorrectly. They are simply not using it as the majority of English speakers use it, at present. It's much like "regular" and "frequent". These were once distinct words. Now there is a such a critical mass of folk using "regular" to mean "frequent" that the words are in transition, and best avoided until a single strong primary meaning re-appears. Maybe "fact" will mean "opinion" in 100 years. Who knows. But there will be other words to take its place (maybe some still to be invented). Note Richard Dawkins's invention of "theorum" in his latest book. A useful little word. I hope it takes off. Cheers Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: +61 3 9596 3456 F: +61 3 9596 3625 W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au Skype: geoffrey.marnell _____ From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:03 PM To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: atw: Re: Correct usage conundrum: "Match to" vs "Match with" So can we now use alternate instead of alternative? I agree with Geoff, but there are SOME examples of just plain "incorrect" usage, which result in a degradation of the language and the nuances we can express using language. I have just had an argument on an American based forum where I have tried to explain that opinion is opinion and fact is fact, as most on the forum do not seem to grasp the difference between the two. Should we drop "fact" from the language, because some cannot differentiate between fact and opinion. I have tried to explain the difference between intellectual debate where divergent ideas are openly discussed, and abuse where people are insulted for their ideas. Should we drop "debate" from the language because all intellectual debate is now seen as personal abuse? Perhaps we should have an unwritten rule that we adapt the language any which way we like, as long as we do not lose meaning and subtlety in the process. But then, one person's meaning and subtlety is different (to/than/from) another's, so who is the arbiter of loss of meaning and subtlety? Christine