--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- authauthfriendtejsteinipanix> wrote: > > --- In FairFairfieldLifeoyahoogroups, Peter > > <drpedrpetersutphen.> > > wrote: <snip> > > > Words do mean different things to different > > people. > > > It's just when one person claims their > > understanding > > > of a word is the best/actual/real common sense/ > > etc. > > > that the problems start. > > > > Some words have a wide range of different and > > sometimes even contradictory meanings, and you > > can't assume you know for sure what someone > > means by them unless the context makes it clear, > > or unless they explain what meaning they're > > using. > > > > But when a word has a well-defined meaning in > > common usage, as I said in another post, that > > meaning is "privileged"--in other words, if you > > want to use the word to mean something else, > > the onus is on you to explain how you're using > > it. You can't expect your listeners/readers to > > read your mind and discern that you were using > > it in a nonstandard manner. > > > > > "Tacky" means one thing to me > > > and something slightly different to AkasAkashablem > > > with AkasAkashathat he keeps on claiming that his > > > definition is the actual, common sense, > > self-evident, > > > obvious definition and is therefore "the" > > definition > > > and any problems I have with it are deficits in my > > > character or something of that ilk and have > > nothing to > > > do with him or what he writes because HE DOES NOT > > > INTEND THAT EFFECT. That is the exact point I'm > > trying > > > to make! > > > > Yeah, you're reading a whole lot into what he > > said. All he said (and all I said) was that his > > understanding of the term was in accord with the > > standard dictionary definition. If there was any > > "deficit" in your character implied, it was only > > that you seemed to think the misunderstanding was > > his fault rather than accepting that it occurred > > because you had used the term to mean something > > other than what it's generally understood to mean. > > Judy, this was going great until your last points..... > I don't think I'm making my point clear, so.... my > take on it: We don't "read into things".
We who? > This implies > an absolute meaning of a word/utterance that is then > "distorted" by the listener. I was talking about your perception that akasha was declaring his understanding of what the word meant was "the" definition and that any problems you have with that is a deficit in your character. He didn't say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way, as far as I can tell. Nothing to do with "absolute meanings," but rather a reasonable range of relative meanings. If your reading is outside that range, that's what I'd call "reading into." To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
