Dirk Elzinga wrote: >At 1:24 AM -0500 03/18/02, David Peterson wrote: >>It's certainly a (literary only) archaism to older American ears like mine; >>quite likely utterly unknown to many of the Younger Generation (Mr. E. Lash >>excluded!) 8-)))>> Wrote Roger... >> >>??? I'm young. All young Americans seem to know this. We all are forced to >>study a Shakespeare play a year. The phrase is the subject of fun, and >>because of that, hardly not unheard of. However, it's never used seriously, >>and probably understood to mean "an old way to say 'must'"--that's the way I >>understood it, until now. How does "needs" mean "absolutely"? Any idea as >>to the history? > >Maybe Roger's point was not that younger Americans wouldn't >*recognize* the construction, but that they wouldn't be able to use >it appropriately. Thank you, Dirk, for clarifying my (as too often) fuzzy verbiage...... Rather than exempting only E.Lash, I should have said "all Listmembers", who are, of course, above average on the scale of linguistic sophistication.