Never a true word!

[Complexity]

Southwind17 - Does it really matter?

We could spend a lot of time looking up 'gay' in the various editions of OED, find studies on how the word has gained some meanings, etc., but is there any point to this activity, as interesting as it would be?

The meanings of words change over time.

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17 - Does it really matter?

We could spend a lot of time looking up 'gay' in the various editions of OED, find studies on how the word has gained some meanings, etc., but is there any point to this activity, as interesting as it would be?

The meanings of words change over time.

Does anything really matter on this forum? If you're not interested you can simply butt out. Fine by me.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Through further discussion and also through context.

Which is generally good enough for matters of shared everyday experience. We all know a gazebo from a cat, but this argument breaks down when we get into areas of uncommon experience or abstract hypothesis- How many threads have become inextricably knotted and tangled over the meaning of "free will"?

Back to kittens...

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Dictionary

A dictionary is a, incomplete and and not always correct, scholarly record of the (written) language.
It does not define the meaning of a word, usage does.

Also, there is no such thing as a exact definition of a word in a natural language.
Every single individual has different and unique connotation with each word.
You can never really know for certain what the other person means.

It's not maths.

 

[Southwind17]

A dictionary is a, incomplete and and not always correct, scholarly record of the (written) language.
It does not define the meaning of a word, usage does.

Also, there is no such thing as a exact definition of a word in a natural language.
Every single individual has different and unique connotation with each word.
You can never really know for certain what the other person means.

Yes, especially when they've never even come across the simple word 'an'!

NOT a good start, xHDx!

 

[TragicMonkey]

Some of us do.

Do you put that weird little hat over the "o" in "role"? Some British books published in the forties do that, although I've never seen it elsewhere.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Meanings change. For a change in the meanings of "starve" "naughty" "poison" "hussy" and "amuse" try this link:

http://www.write101.com/W.Tips261.htm

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Yes, especially when they've never even come across the simple word 'an'!

NOT a good start, xHDx!

It derives from the old Germanic ein.

I now deduce from your words that you are just posting here to pick fights.

You did not comment on the content of my post.
You condescending @#$% <------ (Now, what do these words mean?)

You and I are not off on a good start.

(I manage to make myself misunderstood in four languages.
You use to the one you think you know only for intellectual onanism.)

 

[Complexity]

Does anything really matter on this forum? If you're not interested you can simply butt out. Fine by me.

Actually, to a lot of us, many things discussed in the JREF forum are of interest, and some of them matter a lot.

I've only skimmed several of your posts, but you seem to be offering very little. That's ok, but you're not even amusing.

I'd be happy to skip your stuff - I skip the posts of several other members - but I thought I'd give you a chance.

 

[Southwind17]

It derives from the old Germanic ein.

So use it , then!

I now deduce from your words that you are just posting here to pick fights.

You go ahead and deduce what you like. The fact that I might be accused of intolerance to ignorance doesn't mean that I'm here looking for a brawl, although it seems you'd be pretty easy to pick off.

You did not comment on the content of my post.

I didn't construe it as 'content'. You made a superficial assertion with no substantiation. What were you expecting, a two-page critique?

You condescending @#$% <------ (Now, what do these words mean?)

Well, I know what 'you' and 'condescending' both mean, but as for the seemingly random string of characters that don't form part of the English alphabet, I don't know, do they mean 'I lack imagination', or something along those lines?!

You and I are not off on a good start.

You speak for yourself.

(I manage to make myself misunderstood in four languages.

Why am I not surprised?

You use to the one you think you know only for intellectual onanism.)

And which four 'languages' might this be?

 

[Complexity]

Do you put that weird little hat over the "o" in "role"? Some British books published in the forties do that, although I've never seen it elsewhere.

Actually, one of my favorite authors, Richard Wilbur, has done that in one of his poems, and it works well.

I've started to use the diaeresis ( ¨ ) a bit more in English since I've seen how it is used in scholarized Homeric Greek. I've found it quite helpful there and have more appreciation of when it is used in English to clarify pronunciation (e.g. naive, coordinate, cooperate - the diaeresis should be over the third letter of each word (yes, I'm lazy this morning)).

Many people find all of this very silly, but I'm liking it more. I read a lot from several different periods. I don't think I appreciated what it was trying to communicate until it helped me pronounce Greek.

From wikipedia (Umlaut):

The diaeresis or trema is the diacritic mark ( ¨ ), used to indicate a phonological diaeresis, or, more generally, that a vowel should be pronounced apart from the letter which precedes it. For example, in the spelling coöperate, it reminds the reader that the word has four syllables [koʊˡɔpəreɪt], not three [ˈkuːpəreɪt]. In English, the trema is rare, and not mandatory, but other languages like Dutch, Spanish, and French make regular use of it. By extension, the words trema and diaeresis also designate the same diacritic when used to denote other kinds of sound changes, such as marking the schwa ë in Albanian.
The umlaut is a similar-looking diacritic ( ¨ ) which indicates a phonological umlaut in German. The umlauted vowels are ä, ö, and ü. The same name is used in other languages which have borrowed these symbols from German.

 

[Southwind17]

Actually, to a lot of us, many things discussed in the JREF forum are of interest, and some of them matter a lot.

So much so that you're happy to waste your time reading my posts. Yeah, right.

I've only skimmed several of your posts, but you seem to be offering very little. That's ok, but you're not even amusing.

Whereas you are the epitomy of enlightenment and a regular joker (well, maybe the latter). You'll be pleased to learn that I've not taken the time to even skim your posts.

I'd be happy to skip your stuff - I skip the posts of several other members - but I thought I'd give you a chance.

Oh, you're so kind, I'm a bit of a loser and, well, any chances I can get in life ... But don't mind me, you just go ahead, skip away to the things that 'matter' to you then. Stop wasting your precious time where it's not needed!

 

[Southwind17]

Actually, one of my favorite authors, Richard Wilbur, has done that in one of his poems, and it works well.

I've started to use the diaeresis ( ¨ ) a bit more in English since I've seen how it is used in scholarized Homeric Greek. I've found it quite helpful there and have more appreciation of when it is used in English to clarify pronunciation (e.g. naive, coordinate, cooperate - the diaeresis should be over the third letter of each word (yes, I'm lazy this morning)).

Many people find all of this very silly, but I'm liking it more. I read a lot from several different periods. I don't think I appreciated what it was trying to communicate until it helped me pronounce Greek.

Complexity - does it really matter?

... and, yes, I can see full well why 'many people find all of this very silly', and why you're 'liking it more'. Simple minds, eh!

 

[Southwind17]

Actually, I've just remembered something: The British Law Courts (and I'm assuming, therefore, those of US and other countries) often turn to the dictionary when settling disputes concerning the meaning of words affecting the interpretation of contractual terms and conditions. I don't know which dictionaries, though, but I suppose that could be identified.

My recollection is that, in such circumstances, such words are taken literally, as defined in the dictionary, unless some degree of interpretation is necessarily required due to circumstances. I guess the Courts, to function objectively and effectively, cannot afford to rely on 'common usage' (whatever that means), and must see a high degree of authority in the meaning that whatever dictionary they defer to ascribes to words.

I suppose this largely settles the matter.

 

[Irony]

Actually, I've just remembered something: The British Law Courts (and I'm assuming, therefore, those of US and other countries) often turn to the dictionary when settling disputes concerning the meaning of words affecting the interpretation of contractual terms and conditions. I don't know which dictionaries, though, but I suppose that could be identified.

My recollection is that, in such circumstances, such words are taken literally, as defined in the dictionary, unless some degree of interpretation is necessarily required due to circumstances. I guess the Courts, to function objectively and effectively, cannot afford to rely on 'common usage' (whatever that means), and must see a high degree of authority in the meaning that whatever dictionary they defer to ascribes to words.

I suppose this largely settles the matter.

Common usage and legal documents are not the same thing, but even in the case of legal documents words are interpreted using the literal meaning of words at the time the contract was written. I suppose this largely settles the matter.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Mayhaps.

This forum seems, from my reading, to be mostly in English, an ever-changing language unlike say, French or German....

I was surprised to hear that other languages don't change. I now wonder, when a Frenchman refers to a computer, does he use the word for "abacus"....?

 

[brodski]

Actually, I've just remembered something: The British Law Courts (and I'm assuming, therefore, those of US and other countries) often turn to the dictionary when settling disputes concerning the meaning of words affecting the interpretation of contractual terms and conditions. I don't know which dictionaries, though, but I suppose that could be identified.

My recollection is that, in such circumstances, such words are taken literally, as defined in the dictionary, unless some degree of interpretation is necessarily required due to circumstances. I guess the Courts, to function objectively and effectively, cannot afford to rely on 'common usage' (whatever that means), and must see a high degree of authority in the meaning that whatever dictionary they defer to ascribes to words.

I suppose this largely settles the matter.

Although courts will at times turn to dictionaries, they are not looking for a dictionary to define terms, they are looking to dictionaries as a record of common usage. The idea that “usage determines meaning” is a long standing one in the legal world, which is why Chief Justice John Marshall refused to endorse Websters’ dictionary.
To test the difference between a court using a dictionary to define a word rather than using it to give an indication of usage, it is worthwhile looking at how courts behave when dictionary definitions change. If it were dictionaries rather than usage which determined the intended meaning of words in a legal context, when the dictionary definition changed so would any statute or contract which used those words.
And now for a little reduction ad absurdum, imagine the following scenario.

Judge: Sam Hall, you stand accused of multiple counts of murder, how do you plead.
SH: I never stabbed no one yer honour.
Judge: Ah, a guilty plea! If you never stabbed no one then you must have stabbed someone. Take him down!

.
If dictionaries define the meaning of words, then eth judge would have acted quiet properly.
Dictionaries can be used as guides to usage, but courts are really looking at the intent behind the word- something which a dictionary cannot always provide.
Of course in order to help courts, many contracts and statutes include sections of definitions. If a dictionary could adequately and authoritatively define the legal meaning of words, these sections would not be necessary.

 

[TX50]

Any discussion of dictionaries always makes me think of my favorite Blackadder episode, the one with Dr Johnson. A great big papery thing, tied up with string.

Dr. J: Here it is, sir: the very cornerstone of English scholarship. This book,
sir, contains every word in our beloved language.

Edmund: Every single one, sir?

Dr. J: (confidently) Every single word, sir!

Edmund: (to Prince) Oh, well, in that case, sir, I hope you will not object if
I also offer the Doctor my most enthusiastic contrafribblarities.

Dr. J: What?

Edmund: `Contrafribblarites', sir? It is a common word down our way.

Dr. J: Damn! (writes in the book)

Edmund: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I'm anuspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious
to have caused you such pericombobulation.

Dr. J: What? What? WHAT?

 

[Southwind17]

Common usage and legal documents are not the same thing, but even in the case of legal documents words are interpreted using the literal meaning of words at the time the contract was written. I suppose this largely settles the matter.

Yes, a simple one-liner should suffice to clear the matter up. Thank you, Irony.

 

[Southwind17]

Although courts will at times turn to dictionaries, they are not looking for a dictionary to define terms, they are looking to dictionaries as a record of common usage. The idea that “usage determines meaning” is a long standing one in the legal world, which is why Chief Justice John Marshall refused to endorse Websters’ dictionary.

If 'common usage' means the same as 'how most people use the word', then why the need to refer to a dictionary at all? Surely every member of the courtroom, including the judge, will know the meaning of the word(s) in question, by default! They all, surely, 'commonly' use the word(s)!

To test the difference between a court using a dictionary to define a word rather than using it to give an indication of usage, it is worthwhile looking at how courts behave when dictionary definitions change. If it were dictionaries rather than usage which determined the intended meaning of words in a legal context, when the dictionary definition changed so would any statute or contract which used those words.

Would you care to provide some examples of dictionary 'definitions' which have changed (presumably reflecting common usage), which you feel would have necessitated changes to statute, were the dictionary to be seen as the authoritative reference?

And now for a little reduction ad absurdum, imagine the following scenario.

Judge: Sam Hall, you stand accused of multiple counts of murder, how do you plead.
SH: I never stabbed no one yer honour.
Judge: Ah, a guilty plea! If you never stabbed no one then you must have stabbed someone. Take him down!

Reduction ad absurdum indeed. It doesn't take a literary genius to point out that it's not the 'meaning' of any words that is pertinent to your example; it is, actually, simple grammar, or rather incorrect application thereof. At least try to stick to the point.

If dictionaries define the meaning of words, then eth judge would have acted quiet properly.

Now you're just trying to test me eh? I know what you mean by 'eth' and 'quiet', but that doesn't help your case.

Dictionaries can be used as guides to usage, but courts are really looking at the intent behind the word- something which a dictionary cannot always provide.

Oh, so it's 'guides to usage' now is it, not 'common usage'. And what, exactly, does 'guides to usage' mean?

Of course in order to help courts, many contracts and statutes include sections of definitions. If a dictionary could adequately and authoritatively define the legal meaning of words, these sections would not be necessary.

If you've read as many contracts as I have you will be aware that most words defined therein are words where a special import is necessary to ensure clarity and avoid confusion or misinterpretation in the context of the nature of the contract. For example, 'day' is often defined as 'a working day, i.e. Monday through Friday'. Such sections of contracts, from my experience, never seek to redefine existing words simply because the dictionary definition is lacking in some respect.