IDM Mailing Archive

i'm sorry, but seriously, what does pulling uncited "definitions" of words really prove? John Hager wrote:

quoted 14 lines one meaning of the word steal:

>one meaning of the word steal: > >To use, appropriate, or preempt the use of another's idea, especially >to one's own advantage and without consent by the originator. > >interesting.... > >john > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

-- ____________________________________________________ independent u.s. drum'n'bass -- http://vitriolix.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Josh Steiner said:

quoted 3 lines i'm sorry, but seriously, what does pulling uncited "definitions" of

> i'm sorry, but seriously, what does pulling uncited "definitions" of > words really prove? >

that one can use a dictionary. it's a very important skill, you know! I put it on my resume AND reference it in my portfolio. EggyToast: Dictionary user. Hey, that could be a movie. Or at least a made-for-tv serial commercial. The argument from dictionary approach has a good justification for its use -- if a meaning is widespread enough to be in a dictionary, then it has some weight to it, if as nothing other than something a substantial group of people agree on. The problem is that dictionaries simply express information -- they don't offer any interpretation of their own, and they rarely cover important things like etymology and archaic uses of the word (all of which are very important if you're going to argue about the meanings of words). Here is a good example of why dictionaries are not necessarily good for making arguments based on word meanings and definitions, from Robert S. Wachal, American Speech 77:2: "With respect to changes over time, let me cite a few words and show how they have fared in successive editions of the same dictionary. OED1 glosses cock as 'penis' but gives it no label. OED2 labels it "not permissible in polite speech or literature." Cunt, fuck,and shit are labeled "vulgar" in AHD1, "obscene" in AHD3, and "vulgar slang" in AHD4. Pee is labeled "vulgar" in AHD1 but merely as "slang" in AHD3. Piss is labeled vulgar in W3 but as "sometimes considered vulgar" in W10. Finally, tit has no label in RH1 but is called "vulgar" in RH2. These are the only terms and dictionaries that show any change across time, and, obviously, there is no clear trend. I can only conclude that dictionaries do not well reflect changing usage of the 40 taboo words related to body parts and functions. " Notably, definitions of even common words change all the time, so referencing a document that's simply representative of a part of a culture, regardless of how "correct" that definition is, is a bit short sighted. It'd be like saying the word "gay" only refered to homosexuals. -- eggytoast.com - eggtastic.com ------ catchy signature coming soon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org