• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Synonyms, homophones and language

ProgrammingGodJordan, if it hasn't been pointed out yet ITT, you have been relying on the use of synonyms quite a bit. From Dictionary.com:

Just about every popular dictionary defines synonym as a term having “the same or nearly the same” meaning as another, but there is an important difference between “the same” and “nearly the same.”

Note that 'nearly the same' by definition implies 'not the same'.

we almost always find subtle but important differences among synonyms: although the meanings overlap, they differ in emphasis and connotation.

You really can't treat synonyms as interchangeable.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/synonym
 
ProgrammingGodJordan, if it hasn't been pointed out yet ITT, you have been relying on the use of synonyms quite a bit. From Dictionary.com:



Note that 'nearly the same' by definition implies 'not the same'.



You really can't treat synonyms as interchangeable.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/synonym

From the site you linked: a word or expression accepted as another name for something. (ie interchangeability)

Google definition: a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close. (ie interchangeability)
 
Last edited:
From the site you linked:

Synonym: 2: a word or expression accepted as another name for something. (ie interchangeability)

So you think that citing a secondary definition negates the primary meaning? That is a secondary meaning, applying less frequently. You can't just ignore for your convenience the primary meaning and the limitations of its use, detailed at length on the site.
 
From the site you linked: a word or expression accepted as another name for something. (ie interchangeability)

Google definition: a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close. (ie interchangeability)

Come on now. You just edited out the #2 from your definition. Why?
Yes, Google agrees. The same (one application) or nearly the same (another application). Surely you don't think you get to choose which applies?
 
Yes, Google agrees. The same (one application) or nearly the same (another application). Surely you don't think you get to choose which applies?

(1)
I did not intend to edit out the 2. I had simply added the google definition.
And such an edit does not change the instance that both definitions are visible in the link you provided.


(2)


Yes, Google agrees. The same (one application) or nearly the same (another application). Surely you don't think you get to choose which applies?

When do you get to choose which does not apply?
Particularly, which particular synonym set of mine (in the duration of this thread) are not interchangeable?
 
Last edited:
(1)
I did not intend to edit out the 2. I had simply added the google definition.
And such an edit does not change the instance that both definitions are visible in the link you provided.




(2)
Nearly the same or the same, they are interchangeable.

The link goes on in considerable detail about how nearly the same and the same are not interchangeable. Some more:

A sunset might be described equally well as beautiful or resplendent, but a beautiful baby would not usually be described as resplendent, which implies an especially dazzling appearance. The verbs make and construct mean roughly the same thing, but one is more likely to make a cake but construct a building, which is a more complex undertaking.
Lists of synonyms are useful when we are struggling to write and looking for just the right word, but each word must be considered in light of its specific definition. Notes at the bottom of a dictionary entry—especially usage notes and synonym studies—are often where we’ll find the detailed information that allows us to improve (or refine or polish) our writing.

When do you get to choose which does not apply?
Particularly, which particular synonym set of mine (in the duration of this thread) are not interchangeable?

See #2. Betwixt and amidst are a good example. Nearly the same, but as in the hilited, their respective definitions must be taken into account.
BTW, per forum rules we done gonna get popped for a derail right pronto.
 
Last edited:
(1)
That error has been purged.

Sidenote: Both cite and site have the common synonym lay, so they are perhaps interchangeable. However, I observe that cite is better utilized.


(2)
Separately, you spoke priorly as if there probably persisted invalidity amidst the quote of mine, that you had cited in post #186.
What is the error you claim to detect?
"cite" and "site" are not synonyms. No amount of huge fonts and colours will change that.
 
"cite" and "site" are not synonyms. No amount of huge fonts and colours will change that.

You are ignoring that :

(1) I already observed that cite is better utilized. (commonly used)

(2) lay is a synonym for both site and cite, as indicated in post #200.


From (2), we observe that both 'cite' and 'site' may convey the same information, as evidenced by the instance that both words have the word 'lay' as synonyms.

LOxH5rr.png


UpvK7Eu.png



In other words, the following statements are feasible:

(a) InitialPost Before Site usage: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you sited above in post #186?"

(b) InitialPost With Site synonym: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you placed above in post #186?"

(c) InitialPost Modified With Cite: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you cited above in post #186?"

...Where a, b & c convey similar information.
 
Last edited:
The link goes on in considerable detail about how nearly the same and the same are not interchangeable. Some more:


See #2. Betwixt and amidst are a good example. Nearly the same, but as in the highlighted, their respective definitions must be taken into account.
BTW, per forum rules we done gonna get popped for a derail right pronto.

Synonyms are typically words that may be used in exchange for other words. (Irnoically, as seen in the url you posted)

You have failed to demonstrate why the synonyms betwixt and amidst are not interchangeable.

Please do comment regarding the original passage, as you had long blundered otherwise.
 
(1)Please research before posting.

Please think before posting. There are some minor instances where you might equally use despise or disregard, but the words are not synonyms.


Please stay on topic.

There's a topic?

This thread is only about you redefining words. You attempt to redefine commonly understood words to mean whatever you want them to mean to make whatever point you want to make. You don't get to decide what is on topic, by the way.
 
Data is a plural noun. Your sentence is equivalent to saying, "Here is the cows." Perhaps a trivial mistake but an embarrassing one in the context of this thread.


(1)

SezMe, please research before commenting.

Ironically, data is commonly used as a mass noun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(word))

Thus, the sequence 'here is the data', is valid.


(2)

Although the sequence of my posts on this website have been layman bound, I still attempt to be grammatically valid, so such trivial errors may or may not occur.




(3)

Please stay on topic.
 
Last edited:
Please think before posting. There are some minor instances where you might equally use despise or disregard, but the words are not synonyms.

There's a topic?

This thread is only about you redefining words. You attempt to redefine commonly understood words to mean whatever you want them to mean to make whatever point you want to make. You don't get to decide what is on topic, by the way.


(1)
Probably anyone here may observe that disregard is a synonym for despise.

Please read post 224, or use this thesaurus link.

So, your statement below is demonstrably nonsense.

MikeG said:
Please think before posting. There are some minor instances where you might equally use despise or disregard, but the words are not synonyms.



(2)
I hardly want to use English terms, let alone a word, 'god'.
However, such is the norm.
Anyway, whether or not I make a note of it, humans and typical claimed theistic Gods share an empirically observed property. (See original post)

It is the said commonality that had yielded the re-definition, rather than my 'wanting'.
 
Last edited:
You can't use a string of synonyms to claim that the first and last words are also synonyms. If you look at the image you posted above, you'll see that 'put down' is given as a synonym of despise. Well, 'put down' is a synonym of euthanize. Does that mean that despise means mercy killing? No.

You apply the same weird Chinese whispers style of argumentation in your OP.
"Some people claim intelligent life was created by supernatural beings called gods. People can build artificial intelligence. People are gods."
That is false. Concepts are not equivalent just because they share one similar aspect.
 
(1)

SezMe, please research before commenting.

Ironically, data is commonly used as a mass noun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(word)
Busted link. Try to pay more attention. Data remains the plural of datum.

Thus, the sequence 'here is the data', is valid.
In vernacular speech perhaps.


(2)

Although the sequence of my posts on this website have been layman bound, I still attempt to be grammatically valid, so such trivial errors may or may not occur.
Do you? You fail. That is the "cite" of the land. (Cite is the same as lay isn't it?)




(3)

Please stay on topic.
You have made your abuse of the English language central to your thesis.

Tell me, do hens cite eggs? Do you cite the table before dinner? Do you go to a bookies in order to cite a wager?

Do you really want us to cite down this issue?

How about moving on to the word "set"? Much more scope for linguistic fun there.
 
...So, your statement below is demonstrably nonsense........

It looks like we're going to have to assume that English isn't your first language, and make the necessary allowances. "Despise" means to hate, loath, have antipathy towards. "Disregard" means to ignore, not take account of. They are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.
 
You can't use a string of synonyms to claim that the first and last words are also synonyms. If you look at the image you posted above, you'll see that 'put down' is given as a synonym of despise. Well, 'put down' is a synonym of euthanize. Does that mean that despise means mercy killing? No.

You apply the same weird Chinese whispers style of argumentation in your OP.
"Some people claim intelligent life was created by supernatural beings called gods. People can build artificial intelligence. People are gods."
That is false. Concepts are not equivalent just because they share one similar aspect.

(1)
I didn't say cite and site were synonyms.
I said instead, that they may both be used to convey the same information.
(ie both cite and site have 'lay' as synonyms')


(2)
As I had long stated, claimed theistic God properties are reduced amidst empirical evidence.

The outcome is that scientifically unfounded properties are purged, while the empirical sequence remains, ergo the re-definition is made.
 
Busted link. Try to pay more attention. Data remains the plural of datum.

In vernacular speech perhaps.


Do you? You fail. That is the "cite" of the land. (Cite is the same as lay isn't it?)




You have made your abuse of the English language central to your thesis.

Tell me, do hens cite eggs? Do you cite the table before dinner? Do you go to a bookies in order to cite a wager?

Do you really want us to cite down this issue?

How about moving on to the word "set"? Much more scope for linguistic fun there.

(1)
Link repaired.
I maintain that 'here is the data' is valid, as data is a mass noun, as observed in the repaired link.


(2)
I maintain that post #216 addressed the cite/site non-issue.


Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 11
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you are going to double down and claim that hens do indeed cite eggs. OK then. That tells everyone all they need to know.

It is up to you to do whatever silly thing your thought cycles desire.

Albeit, here is a reminder via post 216:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
In other words, the following statements are feasible:

(a) InitialPost Before Cite usage: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you sited above in post #186?"

(b) InitialPost With Site synonym: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you placed above in post #186?"

(c) InitialPost Modified With Cite: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you cited above in post #186?"

...Where a, b & c convey similar information.
 
Last edited:
It looks like we're going to have to assume that English isn't your first language, and make the necessary allowances. "Despise" means to hate, loath, have antipathy towards. "Disregard" means to ignore, not take account of. They are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.

(1)
Here is a reminder:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Probably anyone here may observe that disregard is a synonym for despise.

Please read post 224, or use this thesaurus link.

So, your statement below is demonstrably nonsense.


MikeG said:
Please think before posting. There are some minor instances where you might equally use despise or disregard, but the words are not synonyms.



Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 11
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(1)
I did not say site and cite were synonyms.
I draw your attention to your very own post #216 You absolutely did make that claim. To be sure you do not attempt to wriggle out of it, I have saved your lame graphics independently.

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 0 and rule 12
Edited by Agatha: 
Removed response to rule breach



(2)

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 11

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed response to breach of rule 11
Your central thesis revolves around your arbitrary redefinition of common words. If such arbitrary redefinitions are shown to be baseless, your central thesis immediately falls.

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 0
You claim to be a computer scientist, a scientist and now a layman. Which is it? Or have you redefined those as well?

Answer the question. Do hens cite eggs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I draw your attention to your very own post #216 You absolutely did make that claim. To be sure you do not attempt to wriggle out of it, I have saved your lame graphics independently.

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed response to rule breach


Edited by Agatha: 
Removed response to rule breach
Your central thesis revolves around your arbitrary redefinition of common words. If such arbitrary redefinitions are shown to be baseless, your central thesis immediately falls.

You claim to be a computer scientist, a scientist and now a layman. Which is it? Or have you redefined those as well?

Answer the question. Do hens cite eggs?

(1)

Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 0


Ironically, post 216 shows that I said that both cite and site have the the word 'lay' as synonyms. (See item '2' on post 216)



Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 0 and 12




Edited by Agatha: 
Removed breach of rule 11



(4)
I simply stated that the sequences of post I made here, are layman bound, existing as a reduction of my default expression cycle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(1)
With probably billions of neurons, you should have observed post 216, as it was, rather than the distortion your quote above presents.

Ironically, post 216 shows that I said that both cite and site have the the word 'lay' as synonyms. (See item '2' on post 216)
Did you not post in #216 this?
In other words, the following statements are feasible:

(a) InitialPost Before Site usage: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you sited above in post #186?"

(b) InitialPost With Site synonym: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you placed above in post #186?"

(c) InitialPost Modified With Cite: "What errors do you claim to detect in my quote you cited above in post #186?"

...Where a, b & c convey similar information.
(2)
Merely a single word was redefined.
See post #246 for a kindergarten version of the original post.
Wrong. In addition to making up your own hinky terms, you have redefined:

god
atheism
cite/site/lay
despise/disregard
word games/scientific method
scientist/layman
uncertainty principle
belief

and probably more that I have omitted.


(3)
Please stay on the topic of the original post.
Your arbitrary redefinition of common words is the central pillar of your OP. It is thus absolutely on topic to critique those.

(4)
I simply stated that the sequences of post I made here, are layman bound, existing as a reduction of my default expression cycle.
Define "expression cycle".

Answer the question. Do hens cite eggs?
 

How...odd that you seem to be of the opinion that what you believe about a word (in this case, "synonym") is more important that the way the word is actually used in communication.

The fact that you believe that two words that are mentioned as synonyms are, in practice, fungible, illustrates a certain...carelessness...in your use of language.

Hint: Opacity is not a positive quality of language that is intended to communicate.
 
From the site you linked: a word or expression accepted as another name for something. (ie interchangeability)

Google definition: a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close. (ie interchangeability)

I see. You are of the opinion that nuance is unimportant; you believe that you can be sloppy about words that are "nearly the same" and still convey precise meanings.

This is part and parcel with your silly argument that an a-theist can believe that humans are 'gods'.

Ask the spirit of Eli Whitney...
 
So you think that citing a secondary definition negates the primary meaning? That is a secondary meaning, applying less frequently. You can't just ignore for your convenience the primary meaning and the limitations of its use, detailed at length on the site.

PGJ is of the opinion that they can...
 
(1)
That error has been purged.

Sidenote: Both cite and site have the common synonym lay, so they are perhaps interchangeable. However, I observe that cite is better utilized.
(2)
Separately, you spoke priorly as if there probably persisted invalidity amidst the quote of mine, that you had cited in post #186.
What is the error you claim to detect?

Integrity check: this was added after my response to the original.

In reality, "cite" (short for "citation") and "site" do not mean the same thing; and no amount of lexicographical legerdemain will make them so. In no meaningful way can I be said to have "sited" that source; it was "sited" where I found it, which is why I "cited" it.

You are confusing homophones with synonyms.
 

You may be of the opinion that your careless use of homophones as synonyms may be justified by an obscure, tertiary similarity, but, as has been explained to you, "nearly the same" is not the same as "interchangeable".

This is only worth pursuing as it illustrates your fundamental lexical tone-deafness. It is not proper to speak of a "citation" (Author, title, source) as a "site"; while a web "site" may be part of a "citation", one cannot meaningfully to be said to have "cited" (or "layed") a source.

Note that this is not a quibble over a typo; it goes far deeper than that.

But, please, do keep digging this hole deeper. It is, at least, more entertaining than your self-contradictory belief that an atheist can believe that "people" are 'gods'...
 
Synonyms are typically words that may be used in exchange for other words. (Irnoically, as seen in the url you posted)

You have failed to demonstrate why the synonyms betwixt and amidst are not interchangeable.

Please do comment regarding the original passage, as you had long blundered otherwise.

What makes this extended derail even sillier is that the issue is not that the two words are not fungible; the actual issues is that neither properly modifies the noun you are using...

"Glory!"
 
Back
Top Bottom