• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Defining Moment

Southwind17

Philosopher
Southwind17
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
5,154
I have not been a member of this forum for long, but have noticed that many threads quickly resort to focusing on the definition or meaning of a word or term posted, often to the detriment of the original intent of the OP. I realize that in many cases clear definition is necessary, as the direction and meaning of the thread is dependent on having clarity, and posters need to realize that too. I have a question though:

Just because a word in common usage has evolved from its original meaning to have a new wide-spread meaning does that necessarily mean that the new meaning should be deemed acceptable?

A good example is the word 'massive'. 'Massive' is commonly, almost exclusively, used today as a synonym for 'large'. I heard on the BBC World Service only this morning reference to a 'massive car bomb'. I doubt that the bomb itself was any more massive than every other recent bomb produced. To my mind 'massive' is a reference to the relative mass of a body. Lead, the metal, is massive, even in minute quantities; air is not, even in large volumes. The most serious misuse of this word is in reference to a 'massive hole', which is possibly one of the best examples of a contradiction.

I read recently that new words are not recognized as such in new editions of dictionaries just because somebody has invented them and uses them. They have to be widely used by the general populace or field in which they are intended to apply. I have some qualm with that principle, given the origin of many such words, namely the youth of today (I'm generalizing, I know). The same seems to be the case, though, with usage of existing words, hence the multiple definitions that we tend to see now in dictionaries covering almost all possible scenarios. "Dictionary.com" does, indeed, include "large in scale, amount or degree" as one of the legitimate definitions of "massive", citing "a massive breakdown in communications; massive reductions in spending." as examples.

What do members feel about these phenomena, and what impact is it having on the efficacy of meaningful, constructive debate?
 
I don't think is has an impact on meaningful, constructive debate. It is rocket fuel to meaningless, destructive debate if that's the order of the day. I don't think multiple meanings have handicapped me in any way, IRL or on-line.

I think your topic is misplaced in "forum management" though. I would probably blame Dictionary.com and its many entries :)
 
acuity said:
I don't think is has an impact on meaningful, constructive debate. It is rocket fuel to meaningless, destructive debate if that's the order of the day. I don't think multiple meanings have handicapped me in any way, IRL or on-line.

I think your topic is misplaced in "forum management" though. I would probably blame Dictionary.com and its many entries :)
Click to expand...

Thank you. Have I mis-posted? How should I start a new post in the correct place?
 
It's a interesting two-sided issue. On one side, a clear definition that is agreed upon by all parties is important for a meaningful to discussion to occur. On the other hand, it is entirely possible for hair-splitting or equivocation to take over the discussion. *shrug*
 
I've re-posted the OP to "Social Issues & Current Affairs" (seems like the most appropriate). Interested contributors please pick up there thanks.
 
Hi, great question. There are probably people here who would go to either end, saying that language is what we make it to be (the Tweedledee argument) or that it must be applied with all rigor possible according to established, authoritative principles (the Schoolmarm argument). I just made up those labels, revealing myself to be Tweedledee-ish when it comes to usage or neologisms in English.

My guess would be that the necessary stance is dictated by the importance of the topic. Lots of people here have been through advanced degrees in the physical or social sciences, and have learned the value of saying what you mean as clearly as possible. Many dissertations include a definitions section to make this as unambiguous as possible. "When I say 'culture' in this paper, I refer to the definition of culture stated by XYZ authority in PDQ important and influential work." Heading the more superficial critics off at the pass.

I'm fine with folks who get a little loose here and there, but I do get pretty School-Marm-ish if the language strikes me as being twisted toward obscurity, rather than clarity.
 
I went into the details of language in the 'Engagement Traditions' thread, describing how language evolves in its meaning, and how words can be described as having two different ways of carrying meaning - denotatively and connotatively.

It might have the answers you're looking for.

Athon
 
athon said:
I went into the details of language in the 'Engagement Traditions' thread, describing how language evolves in its meaning, and how words can be described as having two different ways of carrying meaning - denotatively and connotatively.

It might have the answers you're looking for.

Athon
Click to expand...

As interesting as your linked post is, and it is, thanks, I think plain ignorance is largely at play too. I suspect that the vast, vast majority of people who utter the word "massive" have never uttered it in its denotative form (I'm not sure I have!). They probably even believe they are using it in its denotative form. I struggle to see how connotation can apply to the word "massive" leading one to convert the meaning to "large" by one who truly understands the meaning of the word "mass".
 
Quite right, Athon. I think your stance dictates care in utterance before a vast audience, which is to me a reasonable expectation. Southwind, ignorance and freedom and poetry are welcome (to me, maybe not the board as a whole). Depends on the topic.

I must apologize, what I meant by "Tweedledee" was indeed from Lewis Carroll, but stated by Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all."
 
Last edited:
I try to avoid semantic arguments like the plague, but will engage in them when the argument stems from the meaning of a word. Especially when the argument is based on the logical fallacy of equivocation.

"Evolution is just a theory", for example.
 
I think English is quite an unusual language in that it is used by so many people yet has no "official body" that determines what the language is. For instance Spanish, French and German all have an official body that states what is right or wrong in the language. Since English doesn't in the end the only meaningful standard to use in English is "Do other people understand me".
 
I used to think that ALL arguments were driven by equivocation - a difference in defining key words or concepts between the participants. Whenever I found myself in a debate I immediately looked for the equivocation driving it. I found that this focused the discussion and won me many arguments. It also pissed people off.

I have a more nuanced approach now, but still think its very important to be as specific as possible in how you are defining key terms of your argument. If you don't you risk going off on a wild tangent, and rightfully so. Still, I bore very quickly of overly pedantic posters who refuse to recognize a commonly used term's definition based on its context. Everyone here would know what was meant by "massive hole" based on the context, but some would intentionally (attempt to) derail the thread to discuss the idea of mass rather that the central theme of the OP/thread. But, you always have the option as OP to try to redirect, or start another thread.
 
I should also mention that in any argument about the existence of god, my first request is "define god". But that is mostly to avoid getting into a massive game of theological whack-a-mole.
 
Southwind17 said:
I have not been a member of this forum for long, but have noticed that many threads quickly resort to focusing on the definition or meaning of a word or term posted, often to the detriment of the original intent of the OP. I realize that in many cases clear definition is necessary, as the direction and meaning of the thread is dependent on having clarity, and posters need to realize that too. I have a question though:

Just because a word in common usage has evolved from its original meaning to have a new wide-spread meaning does that necessarily mean that the new meaning should be deemed acceptable?

A good example is the word 'massive'. 'Massive' is commonly, almost exclusively, used today as a synonym for 'large'. I heard on the BBC World Service only this morning reference to a 'massive car bomb'. I doubt that the bomb itself was any more massive than every other recent bomb produced. To my mind 'massive' is a reference to the relative mass of a body. Lead, the metal, is massive, even in minute quantities; air is not, even in large volumes. The most serious misuse of this word is in reference to a 'massive hole', which is possibly one of the best examples of a contradiction.

I read recently that new words are not recognized as such in new editions of dictionaries just because somebody has invented them and uses them. They have to be widely used by the general populace or field in which they are intended to apply. I have some qualm with that principle, given the origin of many such words, namely the youth of today (I'm generalizing, I know). The same seems to be the case, though, with usage of existing words, hence the multiple definitions that we tend to see now in dictionaries covering almost all possible scenarios. "Dictionary.com" does, indeed, include "large in scale, amount or degree" as one of the legitimate definitions of "massive", citing "a massive breakdown in communications; massive reductions in spending." as examples.

What do members feel about these phenomena, and what impact is it having on the efficacy of meaningful, constructive debate?
Click to expand...
I commend you to the CF Larsen School of Pointless Pedantry for case studies numbered one through twenty thousand.

To his credit, he's doing it in a second language.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom