Yeah, I should say "authority" is not fixed and final, even in an authoritative dictionary (how many times did I used to complain on here when people went to their dictionaries to "settle arguments") ... just allows alternative definitions (in different contexts say) to be written down long enough for people to use 'em for more than just debating their meaning ... but that authority is ultimately based on trust. If the population don't like you dictionary, they can always choose another or invent their own.
Authoritative is a measure of how many people ultimately "trust" them - whether they agree with "their" definition of a particular word or not. (Like any kind of governance - free and democratic, with brakes on, someone trusted with their hand on the brake.) Of course back to your case in point ... the more fundamentally metaphysical the word you are debating ... the less likely you are to trust a dictionary where you disagree with its definition of that term, even if you agree with 999,999 others. But anyway I was agreeing with you. All meaning is negotiated. Authoritative (trusted) dictionaries just keep score. Ian On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:57 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian] > I might say that for anything contentious (where negotiation of meaning > doesn't > converge easily and different people have different "interests" in agreed > meanings) Wikipedia is actually a useless place to find a definition ... which > kinda proves Arlo's point ... > > [Arlo] > Yes, that a word is heavily contentious just shows that meaning is NOT > constant, and its kinda absurd to think an "authority" can step in and make it > so. > > Our language is always a place where some words/ideas are more or less > contested than others at any given time, and everyone knows that some > foundation of consensus is necessary lest we spend all our time unable to > communicate at all. > > But "more or less contested" is not the same as "an authority has decreed that > THIS means THAT". It simply means the majority at the moment have said "okay, > for this we agree it means that, now lets talk about this other". > > [Ian] > Aside - Which is why some editorial authority is needed to publish a > dictionary > (or encyclopedia) of any real value - a brake on instability and too rapid > change. > > [Arlo] > What a good "authority" does is scour a broad range of use and try to tease > apart for that moment the common consensus of meaning. But it is not, nor has > it ever been, something that halts negotiation. > > To ground this in our discussion, here we have this word/concept "theism". Who > is the final authority on what that word "means"? The editor of a dictionary? > (Man, that's power I'd love to wield!) Let's say MW's authoritarian editor > publishes a dictionary that defines "theism" as "a psychosis of belief". Would > you argue? Accept? Turn to other authorities? > > The case in point here was that Wikipedia used the word "deity" while MW did > not. So does "theism" have anything to do with a belief in a deity? Has the > authority at MW decided correctly it does not? > > Consider that for MW, the primary definition for "theism" is "belief in god or > gods" (Michael's view). But for dictionary.com its "the belief in one God as > the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation". > Cambridge's online dictionary defines theism as only "the belief that there is > only one god, who is completely separate from those things (the Earth, people, > etc.) he has created, rather than being part of them". > > Which is right? What about the "authoritative" encyclopedic definitions I > pointed to yesterday? Which is "right"? The one that you agree with? ("You" in > the general sense). > > [Ian] > It took Wikipedia a few years to learn this, but they have learned the value > of > editorial authority recently. > > [Arlo] > Meaningful negotiation needs protection from those who would disrupt the > process, to be sure. If MW is bombarded by people who seek to define "theism" > as "a psychosis" it needs to have sufficient buffering to know that this is > NOT > part of the majority commonly held use. Wikipedia found that with popularity > came those who would bring harm rather than meaningful negotiation. > > Anyone can still propose ideas, and good ones become part of the ongoing > negotiation of meaning, but individuals are prevented from usurping the > negotiation process for their own disruptive purposes. > > > > 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/ > 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/
