Michael wrote: > > "At some point, a notion similar to a notion that was > > in my head was caused to arise in yours. How did that happen? Those words > possess the capacity to in-form." > I responded: "The notion behind "capacity" there is muddled. It suggests the ability "to do" something."
Michael responded: "In your head, not in mine! The muddling is entirely your doing. I "meant" [with 'capacity'] the concept of "to > hold, to contain," NOT "capable," having an ability, > i.e., "to do"--which seems to be the notion your thoughts glommed on to." > To which I now respond: No, Michael, the muddlement is yours. Look again at your phrase: "capacity to in-form". But you just said you did NOT mean "an ability to do". "To inform" is indeed "to do" something. To emphasize that you do mean to impute action to words, you add: > "Words inform, they impart form to the reader or > listener." > So you chose the wrong word -- instead of 'capacity' it should have been 'capability' -- AND you still harbor the indefensible notion that words act, do things. Much muddlement, and all yours, not mine. ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
