----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:38 PM Subject: Re: Definitions, Hey Julia
> > OK, so you did, sorry I missed it. > > You wouldn't need to be apologising if you just read a little more carefully > :) Well, I make mistakes and I admit it. I am self confindent enough to think that I've got a decent enough reputation to be able to survive a mistake or two. > > > I've got another question for you. > > > > Do you consider OED authorative? > > Yes and no. Yes I do, but not in the sense I suspect you mean. Dictionaries > are descriptive rather than prescriptive: that is they describe how words > *are* used not how words *ought* to be used. And what decides "ought?" My impression, which may be wrong, is that the right definition of a word is the one that fits your arguement. Let me quote an early post from you in that manner: "ROTFLMAO! That is a hoot Dan. You are a real comedian! You are the one trying to redefine words to suit yourself. I am just referring to standard encyclopaedias and dictionaries to clear up the confusion you are trying to spread." I then proceeded to give numerous quotes from dictionaries, giving my meaning as the primary meaning. The meaning that you appeared to give as the primary meaning was sorta there if you squinted in the interpretation of latter definitions. I realize that you quoted an encylcopedia, later, and I will get to that in a bit. I didn't respond right away, because I was not impressed with the free online dictionary one gets with a cheap computer as authorative. But, since you gave origional sources, I'll adress that. My point in the above is that you mocked me as giving twisted definitions of a word, when I gave the first or second definition in most dictionaries. Your definition is an streach of even your source, IMHO. > Additionally they are inclusive rather than exclusive: if a usage is in a dictionary that >means that some people have used the word that way, but if a usage is not in a dictionary > that does not mean that the word has not been used that way by some people. But, you interjected yourself into a threat to correct_ my use of the word religion. Am I really out of line when I use a primary dictionary definition of a word? If you were a theologian, and wanted to give a more technical definition, I might accept that. But, IIRC, we have approximately the same amount of education in philosophy, (BA and some graduate work, but no MA or PhD) and I dare say I've studied a bit more theology than you. So, why do you feel justified in mocking me for using the primary definition. > > > I like neologisms. > > > > > Do you argue with the etomology of anti-Semetic? > > Etymology isn't about the use of words, but about their derivation. or development, as I've seen it defined. And that was given by Adam, IIRC. The word was deliberately coined to describe anti-Jewish attitudes. >Arguing about the etymology of a word is best left to philologists. An example > (maybe not a brilliant one) of etymology and use diverging is the current > popular usage of 'decimate'. Right. And anti-Semitism is another. But, in one case, it is quite acceptable to you; and in the other its "not proper." Why is it OK to describe killing off the majority as decimating a population (instead of killing 10%, while it is not OK to define anti-Semetic as opposed to the Jews. > > How could the dictionary definition of the word be more useful for a serious > discussion of the subject than the more detailed and expert definitions of > two professional theologians? [That I provided earlier.][1] Well, there are several answers to that. First, I've had discussions with a number of theologins also; and have never gotten a hint that they considered Marxism and Objectivism religions. Further, it is not at all clear that these authors would have agreed with your definition. I read it a bit differently. I'll agree that these folks would argue that there can be atheistic religions; but I have a hunch they are in the minority with that opinion. My daughter is a seminarian at Columbia seminary. Its a pretty well known seminary in the states. She considers it better than Yale and Princeton, turning down a very good scholarship at Yale to go there. (I know this may sound like bragging on my kid, but I'm only doing it to establish Columbia's reputation). It has two well noted theologians that she is taking classes from: Walter Brueggemann and Shirley C. Guthrie. I did searches on your two and her two and got many more hits on Amy's professors...a few vs. scores. So, I think her professors would qualify as well known theologians. If I ask her about Marxism and Objectivism as religions, would you consider that authorative? If I could persuade her to ask them, which she might not feel comfortable doing 'cause she just started, would you consider that authorative? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
