I think the LOH ending is proper to the LOH only, so you needn't worry about that. And "Spirit" is used in doxological formulations in the Missal, so that would make more sense than "Ghost," I think.

Well, that's arguable, @Salieri, especially when reading the doxology in place, straight out of the book. But I don't care to ask for two versions (four if you count the processional and office tones separately) memorized, with consequent confusion.

But I'll settle on Fr Weber's version, rather than Burgess'n'Palmer, for Kathy's reasons and yours (since more likely to be chanting from The Proper Of The Mass when doxology is used). The other book we use is By Flowing Waters, which has "Give glory... will be forever. Amen."

The Ordinariate Use's use is 'Glory be... to the Holy Ghost... world without end...'. Of course, this is official only for the Ordinariate. The St Meinrad 'use' is 'Glory to... the Holy Spirit.. as always before, so now and evermore...'. (I always thought that the '... as always before, so now and evermore...' was kind of nice.) It seems to me that for the OF, since there is no 'official' translation of any of the propers, one is at liberty to use that of his choice. Personally, I've always thought that 'Glory to...' instead of 'Glory be to...' sounded rather artless, graceless, clumsy, clunky, and dumb. As for 'Ghost', it seems that certain types went with an ax after all Anglo-Saxon or Germanic sourced words in favour of Latinate ones, though traditional English usage had always leant to 'Ghost'. 'Ghost', of course, means 'Spirit', but not in the minds of certain frown-minded types who like to impose their idiocy and just plain ignorance on everyone else - and weedle themselves into positions of influence so that they can do so.

Persons of immediate post VII influence tended to favor Germanic terms in English.

We use the LoTH version (which our pastor views as official since the Hours may be combined with Mass).

Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
As always before,
so now and evermore. Amen!

I think there is a little liberty in this situation, though I wouldn't go for "ghost" which I think is an inferior translation that has crossed into self-conscious trad affectation/identitarian/"we're different and trad" thing and should be given up for those reasons.

"Holy Ghost" is used in the Douay-Rheims/Challoner bible, which a lot of us read. So it could just be that people adopt that because that's what they are used to reading. I think that's the case for myself (I probably say both in private prayer when praying in English).

But some people have reasons, too. For instance, a priest friend of mine always argued for "Ghost" because a ghost is a person, whereas the English word spirit has all kinds of other connotations. So he preferred "Ghost" in order to promote a proper trinitarian theology.

So he preferred "Ghost" in order to promote a proper trinitarian theology.

This strikes me as some serious retconning. The Holy Spirit is not a person in the sense that a human beings (or their ghost) is a person--i.e. possessing an independent intellect and will--and thinking it is will get your Trinitarian theology into some serious trouble. Talking about the Holy Ghost is like wearing spats or using a monocle--i.e. it suggests you're unserious (I suppose if it's a habit you picked up from reading that Douay Bible I might give you a pass, but then my question would be, "Why read the Douay Bible?").

Point taken about the theology; and I won’t defend it on those grounds. But it’s not bad in the way baptism in the name of the creator, redeemer, and sanctifier is bad. It’s just old fashioned.

I think plenty of people refer to the Holy Ghost when praying or discussing religious ideas, and I fail to see how that makes them unserious. It might be coded as “trad,” but I’m not even sure that’s true. It has been a perfectly respectable English usage for centuries among Catholics and Protestants alike; I don’t see how it can be considered “faulty” or “antiquated.”

Perhaps the Douay bible is not the most readable (still worth a look!), but I also like the Knox translation, which also uses “Holy Ghost.”

If "Spiritus" is good enough in Latin, I can hardly think "Spirit" isn't good enough in ze English.

Because we can profit from Germanic and Latin roots in alternation. I like that “the Holy Ghost” is always that, but sometimes “Spiritus Domini” (in English too) might not be the Spirit.