[Michael] "Dialogic nature" is by definition wholly useless for the purpose of establishing a commonly accepted definition of a word.
[Arlo] Surely you can see the error in this. Establishing a definition is always dialogic. Word meanings change over time, not because any one authority "says so", but because we are always in the process of negotiating meaning. [Michael] Etymological constancy is the foundation for dialog, *not* the other way around. If the meaning of words are dialogic in nature, dialog becomes meaningless. [Arlo] No. Because meaning is dialogic, dialog is possible. The "constancy" is simply a moment of shared concensus; not final nor permanent in any manner. [Michael] That said, I don't discount that wikipedia has value. But recent changes being proposed to deal with the very problem I point out only re-inforce my point... [Arlo] What you see is the lack of meaningful negotiation. Whether or not its "in the open", these problems (well, they aren't problems per se) exist even at "authoritative publishers", you simply aren't privy to the backroom dialog at Britannica HQ. [Michael] when the topic is politically charged, wikipedia's reliability as a neutral source breaks down where other more "authoritarian" models hold up. [Arlo] Many would disagree, myself among them. There have been countless criticisms over the year of "bias" in Britannica and other "authoritarian" models, again you simply aren't privy to them. But if you think the consensus reached by "authoritarian" models is any less dialogic, or any less contested, you are sorely mistaken. [Michael] Meaning by democracy is not meaning. [Arlo] Yikes! I'd say meaning without negotiation is impossible, but imposed "meaning" when it occurs is arbitrary and illusionary. Witness our disagreement over the definition of "theism". Which "authority" do we turn to? In what context? A one-line sentence in MW? Britannica? Wikipedia? Is any of these "always right" whereas the others "always wrong"? Is there any sans "bias"? (My personal opinion is that "bias" is a charge only leveled against a source you disagree with). Back to the dictionary thing, I am tempted to point out the similarity between this and Pirsig's ZMM talk on how instruction manuals are written. Their genre tends towards the appearance of an absolute "right way", and provides them with an air of legitimacy, but really they are one or more people simply stating what they think is the right way, and a system that has limited dialog to present alternatives. In short, dictionaries are (to me) the least valuable source in ascertaining meaning. Corpora, real language in context across a broad sampling of use, likely gives a much richer portrait of what any "word" means. For what its worth, I don't present Wikipedia as any "final authority" either. Its just one voice. Much better to get a broad view of meaning ascribed to words to see how any word in culture will likely be taken when used. [Michael] And this is really diverging from the topic at hand, so... [Arlo] So I've changed the topic header. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
