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