In public discussions, . . . it is a common practice for one of the disputants to dismiss his opponent's argument by saying that it is merely a matter of semantics . . . . This approach is open to two objections. The first is the use of the word 'merely.' When disputants are arguing with words -- and no other method of argument is in general use -- the meanings that they attach to the words they use are of fundamental importance, not something to be dismissed. The second objection is that the comment should be followed, as it rarely is, by an examination of what semantic problems are involved and how they affect the argument.

It is easy enough to say that a person should live in such a way as to avoid the perfect infinitive after the past conditional, but it is another matter to do it.

He who is risen
Hath cast no shadow today
No prolonged winter!

There are three main sources of colour in language, and all of them involve words: vividness, activeness and pleasantness. The first makes the picture clear, the second makes it lively, and the third makes it easy to look at.

Clear thought easily finds words to fit it.

With some awe we have to remind ourselves that writers like Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton had no access to what we would call dictionaries. Spelling did not much worry them, as it worries a modern author who runs to his dictionary to check on difficult words like 'hemorrhage' (my personal blind spot). Milton spelled in his own creative manner, preferring 'mee' to 'me' when he wished to be emphatic; Shakespeare went the free and easy Elizabethan way, leaving his own name to be juggled with in a variety of orthographical fantasies; with Chaucer the encoding of speech sounds was logical and required no checking.