Sonja wrote: > "Adam C. Lipscomb" wrote: > > > When we are discussing meaning of words, it is imperative that we rely > > upon dictionaries, because they are THE sources that tell us HOW A > > WORD IS USED. If I decide that "blue" ought to mean "green", I can > > with justification be called wrong on that, because the *commonly > > accepted definition* is that "blue" does not mean "green". > > Luckily nobody applies this as rigourous and single minded as suggested > here, or the language would be stagnant and dying. Development of language > depends on words being used in new and innovative ways. Also invention of > new words is very common and more so in this age of innovation. > Unfortunatly this means that any dictionary is gonne be out of date as > soon as it's printed. :o)
Nothing you said directly contradicts my point - the reason we're spending so much time discussing the meaning of the term "anti-Semite" is in large part due to accusations leveled against your husband. He has taken refuge in a carefully constructed house of cards, claiming that he is not an "anti-Semite" because he does not hate Arabs. While I do not think your husband is an anti-Semite (in either sense), he is essentially hiding behind a non-denial. It has been clearly pointed out that, in English, according to the etymology and vast majority of definitions, including the internationally recognized authority on word meaning, usage and etymology (that darn OED), the term "anti-Semite" is in its most common and proper usage defined as "Jew-hater". Since Jeroen is not a Jew-hater, why is he wasting energy that could be spent studying for his tests arguing that the proper usage of a word is something it is not? Do you, or do you not, consider it important to ensure that all parties are at a common understanding of the meaning of a term, whether it be "anti-Semite", "cancer" or "cherry pie"? If I invite you over for "cherry pie" and, upon your arrival, hit you in the head with a stick, claiming that is *my* understanding of the term "cherry pie", am I therefore in the right, or did I just play a cruel trick upon you? If a doctor says, "You have ovarian cancer", but after you've had your ovaries surgically removed, says, "Now, when I said 'ovarian cancer', I meant 'lung cancer'", is that OK? No, we cannot depend upon words having the same meaning forever, but we *can* look at how words are used now, and we can look at the most common usages of them, and we can say, "Hmmm. Joe American just called Jeroen an anti-Semite. That means Joe American is calling Jeroen a Jew-hater." Do you see the point I am making here? It doesn't matter a rat's a$$ what you *want* a word to mean. In 20-30 years, if the new edition of the OED uses Jeroen's definition of "anti-Semite", I'll gladly concede that he has brought about a change in the usage of the term. Until then, I expect him to recognize that his usage goes against the proper and common usage of the term, and is therefore incorrect. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
