moi: > > what are all the strange abbreviations (IC19, C19, etc.?) I think C19 > > is the 19th century, but what is "IC19" or "eCl9"?
Carrol Cox: > Early (ec19) and late (lc19). C18/C19 are quite common in much > historical writing, particularly in works that resemble a dictionary > (Williams) or an encyclopedia. thanks. > > the history of the word "ideology" is interesting, but I don't find it > > useful. To my mind, the meanings of words are _arbitrary_ and > > _conventional_. I try to use words the way most people use them > > currently > > If you think history is useful, then you _have_ to think the history of > words is useful, for it is a prerequisite to understanding historical > documents. yes, it's useful to understanding historical documents, but I seldom read them. But words are, well, "mere words" (to quote Hobbes). I'm more interested in the material side of life, of history. > You are correct in affirming that the origin(s) of a word > cannot determine how one uses the word now, but one's own use of a word > is hardly the only or even the most important usage of that word. right. I didn't say that my use trumped others. My point is that it's important to define words, especially abstract ones. > Incidentally, "arbitrary" and "conventional" are two different > perspectives on word usage. In so far as a meaning is arbitrary it is > not conventional and vice versa. yes, the word "and" should be replaced by "or" in my sentence. but I'm not convinced that there's a conflict between "arbitrary" and "conventional." The line between "green" and "blue," for example, is arbitrary. As they say, where do your draw the line? But it's tradition -- convention -- that the line is drawn where it is (a somewhat vague line). That is, its a large group of people who informally define where to draw the line. This tradition varies between cultures, by the way. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
