Never a true word!

[brodski]

Do the original meanings change?

Words do not have meanings, they have usage.
They are a medium for conveying information they are not the information in themselves.

 

[brodski]

Says who? When I was at school it was fashionable for kids to say: Hey, borrow me your rubber (that's eraser, if you're not a Brit!). Go check out the definitions of 'borrow' and 'lend', see how well that particular usage took hold!

The substitution of "boor" for "lend" and vice versa has a long history as a regional variant in English. the fact that the dictionaries do not reflect this is a failing of the dictionary, not of the language

 

[Southwind17]

A common tactic in many debate forums; such as this one, is to redefine the words of an opponent. This of course is fallacious.

Another tactic is to redefine words written many years ago with their current common definitions, ignoring the meaning of the word when written. This is another fallacy.

So you agree with the OP then?

 

[Southwind17]

Words do not have meanings, they have usage.
They are a medium for conveying information they are not the information in themselves.

I've never heard anything so ridiculous, and you've probably never demonstrated anything so ridiculous by virtue of the fact that I can understand what you've written, regardless of its nonsensical assertion.

 

[Southwind17]

The substitution of "boor" for "lend" and vice versa has a long history as a regional variant in English. the fact that the dictionaries do not reflect this is a failing of the dictionary, not of the language

That's a convenient criticism! Could it be that 'boor' (well, at least your usage of it) is simply slang, or at best colloquial, hence its absence from the dictionary?

 

[brodski]

I've never heard anything so ridiculous, and you've probably never demonstrated anything so ridiculous by virtue of the fact that I can understand what you've written, regardless of its nonsensical assertion.

You understood what I said because of the way in which I used the words and because we share common assumptions about what letters and spaces arranged int that order are intended mean.
There is no intrinsic meaning to any word, there is common understanding. That common understanding will shift over time in over organic way, separate from any dictionary.

It is perfectly possible to use a word in an "incorrect" manner, or even make up a new word completely, and still convey meaning, yet by your understanding this would not be possible until that word or usage had been ascribed a "correct" meaning through a dictionary or the like.

By takign this position you are ignoring any number of perfectly comulent words and usages.

 

[brodski]

That's a convenient criticism! Could it be that 'boor' (well, at least your usage of it) is simply slang, or at best colloquial, hence its absence from the dictionary?

I made a typing error, I'm sorry.

Now, by what method do you differentiate "colloquial" or "slang" English which is not worthy for inclusion in the dictionary from words and usages which are?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So you agree with the OP then?

Yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm still hoping we can get "cow-orker" into the dictionary.

Isn't orking cows illegal in most states?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I too was raised to think of "The" dictionary as defining meanings , not describing current usage.

I still lean that way, because with the demise of Latin or Greek tuition which did tend to "anchor" English etymology, who or what , if not the dictionary does define meaning?

Some will say definitions are not necessary, but the sort of philosophical debates the OP describes gives the lie to that.

The problem is which dictionary to use? Some will say OED, others Webster and so on (I'm a Chambers man too, Southwind).

A friend used to deride what he saw as linguistic pedantry . I explained that I had put a white crystalline powder on his dinner; possibly sodium Chloride, possibly sodium Chlorate- the difference was mere pedantry.

 

[brodski]

Some will say definitions are not necessary, but the sort of philosophical debates the OP describes gives the lie to that.

Except they don't. the trouble with the philosophical debates mentioned int eh Op is that people get hung up on definitions of words rather than the concept behind the word.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Except they don't. the trouble with the philosophical debates mentioned int eh Op is that people get hung up on definitions of words rather than the concept behind the word.

You have hit the nail!

The thing is, many use the tactic of obfuscation of word meaning to derail debate. This is dishonest at its heart.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Yes, that looks suitably authoritative: "Words and Language in a Humorous Vein". I'll bet that's the first port of call for most lawyers and copywriters.

Well, you obviously don't who Evan Morris is, do you? Maybe if you had actually bothered to look around the site ....

 

[Soapy Sam]

Except they don't. the trouble with the philosophical debates mentioned int eh Op is that people get hung up on definitions of words rather than the concept behind the word.

Best if they shared a common , agreed definition.
If we don't have that, it's possible that when I say "The cat sat on the mat", I actually mean " Yonder gazebo entered the boatyard", but how could you tell?

 

[brodski]

Best if they shared a common , agreed definition.
If we don't have that, it's possible that when I say "The cat sat on the mat", I actually mean " Yonder gazebo entered the boatyard", but how could you tell?

Through further discussion and also through context.
Yes, there does have to be some common understanding about which broad concepts words used in certain ways should represent, otherwise we're not speaking the same language, but that does not me we have to agree beforehand exactly what concepts we will intend to convey with each combination of words or phrases. No two people speak exactly the same form of English, and the range of concepts is so vast no single codified language could ever hope to encapsulate them all.

Maybe it would be nice if we had a true authority for the English language, such as exists for German, French Danish and (I don't doubt) many other languages. The fact is, we don't- and .
And those those nations which speak languages which do have official standards bodies often run into problems or controversy when people decide that they want to use the language in new or different ways.

 

[Southwind17]

You understood what I said because of the way in which I used the words and because we share common assumptions about what letters and spaces arranged int that order are intended mean.
There is no intrinsic meaning to any word, there is common understanding. That common understanding will shift over time in over organic way, separate from any dictionary.

'common assumptions', 'common understanding'! And how, exactly, are these assumptions and understanding communicated and taught? When my son reads his books alone and comes across a word that he doesn't recognize, how does he learn the 'meaning' (or, to use your argument, 'usage') of that word? I suppose he considers and analyses all the different contexts and alternatives, and works it out through a process of elimination does he? So that's why he's taking so long to get through his books; if only I'd bought him a dictionary!

It is perfectly possible to use a word in an "incorrect" manner, or even make up a new word completely, and still convey meaning, yet by your understanding this would not be possible until that word or usage had been ascribed a "correct" meaning through a dictionary or the like.

Buggy fuz shosty bejalst micken pippinhose! Don't you agree?

By takign this position you are ignoring any number of perfectly comulent words and usages.

Such as?

Now, by what method do you differentiate "colloquial" or "slang" English which is not worthy for inclusion in the dictionary from words and usages which are?

If you check out the 'meaning' of these words in a dictionary you might see that the common thread is 'informality'. Most slang and colloquialism, I guess, is probably learned through usage, and is often contained geographically within any language, hence the kinds of words that kids come home from the school playground using. Perhaps formality and informality are appropriate differentiators for defining the purpose of an authoritative dictionary (you might be aware that separate dictionaries covering slang are published!).

Through further discussion and also through context.

That's an efficient approach!

Yes, there does have to be some common understanding about which broad concepts words used in certain ways should represent, otherwise we're not speaking the same language, but that does not me we have to agree beforehand exactly what concepts we will intend to convey with each combination of words or phrases. No two people speak exactly the same form of English, and the range of concepts is so vast no single codified language could ever hope to encapsulate them all.

You seem to place great emphasis on the notion of 'broad concepts' (is there another type?). I doubt you'd accept an invitation to look up 'concept' in a dictionary, so let me help you:

1. a general notion or idea (Dictionary.com)

So, words are used to afford us a 'general notion or idea' right? Gee, this sure is an efficient system for communication that's unlikely to lead to misunderstanding! ... or do you have a somewhat different 'concept' of what the word 'concept' means?!

Maybe it would be nice if we had a true authority for the English language, such as exists for German, French Danish and (I don't doubt) many other languages. The fact is, we don't.

Have you even seen a dictionary? Seriously, it really could be just a case of agreeing which one, although I doubt that's easily resolved.

And those those nations which speak languages which do have official standards bodies often run into problems or controversy when people decide that they want to use the language in new or different ways.

Oh yes, it's really held those countries back hasn't it!

 

[Southwind17]

Well, you obviously don't who Evan Morris is, do you? Maybe if you had actually bothered to look around the site ....

Actually, no I don't. I perused the home page but there is no obvious link to the specific subject matter for which you cited it. I felt that that, combined with the strap line, was sufficient not to pay too much attention to it in the context of this thread.

 

[Complexity]

You're backwards. Dictionaries report how words are being used by people. Dictionaries conform to usage, not the other way around.

For instance, "cooperate" used to have that stupid two dots over the second o, and before that it was hyphenated. We don't do that anymore.

Some of us do.

 

[Complexity]

For some of the many meanings of 'gay', read one of my favorite poems, "Lapis Lazuli", by Yeats:

http://www.web-books.com/classics/poetry/anthology/Yeats/Lapis.htm

'gay' has meant a lot more than 'happy' for a long time.

 

[Southwind17]

Look up the word "gay" in a dictionary, and it will tell you that the most common use of that word today is to refer to a homosexual; yet in the past, the primary use was to refer to a state of happiness. That does not mean that the past use was wrong, nor that the present use is wrong.

For some of the many meanings of 'gay', read one of my favorite poems, "Lapis Lazuli", by Yeats.
'gay' has meant a lot more than 'happy' for a long time.

From "Dictionary.com":

gay:

1. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music.
2. bright or showy: gay colors; gay ornaments.
3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
4. licentious; dissipated; wanton: The baron is a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies.
5. homosexual.
6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues: a gay organization.
7. a homosexual person, esp. a male.

Which dictionary(ies) are you referring to Wolfman?