malbui
Beauf
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,688
Hey, in my household it's Molière night every night. Can't even ask the wife to make me a coffee without using fourteen subjunctives.
Never a true word!
- Thread starter Southwind17
- Start date
-
- Tags
- definition
Hey, in my household it's Molière night every night. Can't even ask the wife to make me a coffee without using fourteen subjunctives.
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
DrKitten said:
So you don't believe that 'massive' means 'weighty' today? What would you say 'massive' means today then? As you know, my dictionary is only around 10 years old, but neither its various definitions of 'massive' nor any of the four dictionaries' various definitions (excluding the etymology and medical dictionaries) cited on Dictionary.com include the 'common usage' application to a hole in the ground: "a massive hole", that, as I pointed out earlier, we so 'commonly' hear and read in the media, and beyond. Are we simply waiting for all these dictionaries to 'catch up' with what's happening in the real World? I wonder.
So do you believe that awesome means "inspiring fear" today?
malbui
Beauf
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,688
My wife is the flashing-eyed, quick-tempered descendant of some proud Venetian nobility. If I were even to consider instructing her to do anything, my quartered body would be feeding the crows within hours.
She does make good coffee, though, when I ask her nicely.
It is intended for the purpose of recording the present usage of words.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/massive
Random House.
American Heritage.
Princeton University.
American Heritage medical.
Merriam-Webster.
Out of 10 dictionaries cited, 5 aren't relevant and all five of the others give the definition you claim doesn't exist.
So, the question is, did you actually look it up and then lie about it, or did you just make up some crap and hope no-one bothered to check?
It's a term-of-art among professional linguists, who do talk about it, routinely and at length. Similarly, the word "bacterium" is in common usage among doctors, who distinguish them from "viruses." If you use the word in a sense other than the one in common usage among the specialists, I (and any other knowledgeable reader) infer that you're not very knowledgable about the field in you are discussing.
Hence the use of dictionaries, to document the common use of words, especially words that are in "common use" to only a small fraction of the population.
Not exclusively; the word has taken on alternative meanings that are now more prevalante than the core meaning.
I'm happy with the OED's definitions : "impressively or unusually large.",
"Now freq. in weakened senses: far-reaching, very intense, highly influential."
Yes. The OED has demonstrably already caught up -- a "massive" hole is an impressively or unusually large one. The fact that your dictionary does not include a sense that the OED has identified, documented, and included is a weakness of your dictionary.
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
It is intended for the purpose of recording the present usage of words.
'recording the present usage of words'. Mmm ... that's a very productive pastime; not disimilar to collecting car number plates, or train spotting, for example.
I'd be inclined to suggest that it's used for reference purposes, but you've already painted yourself into a corner haven't you, and are unable to backtrack without looking somewhat a little foolish. It's OK though Cuddles, I won't chastise you for it, honestly, we are all prone to making mistakes at times!
Actually, I think 'the question' is a totally different one. I actually did neither of those things that you would like to believe I may have done. Some of the five relevant dictionaries you quote from are the very same as some of those I alluded to. It seems we have different interpretations of the meanings given. So, which of the meanings given, exactly, do you ascribe to a 'large hole in the ground', by reference and likening to, if you please, the examples that the said dictionaries seem necessarily to provide in order to contextualize the otherwise somewhat 'loose' meanings given? I find it rather intriguing, actually, that none of them chose actually to use the much flaunted "massive hole" as a suitable example, given the extent of its present-day 'common usage', don't you?! It seems much more apt than the examples actually chosen!
'recording the present usage of words'. Mmm ... that's a very productive pastime; not disimilar to collecting car number plates, or train spotting, for example.
Well, you bought a dictionary, didn't you? So it wasn't that unproductive.
Well, let's see: Which of the following definition could possibly be used to mean "large"?
3. large in scale, amount, or degree:
2. Large or imposing,
1. imposing in size
3. imposing in scale
1. Large in comparison with the usual amount.
1 : large in comparison to what is typical
So, of the six definitions cited, four specifically cite "large" as its meaning -- (a "massive" hole is a "large" one). Three cite "imposing" (a "massive" hole is an "imposing" one), which in turn is specifically listed as synonymous with "large" by one of the definitions.
Not at all. If "massive" means "large" in general, it would be a waste of space to list all of the objects that can be "massive" (meaing "large").
'recording the present usage of words'. Mmm ... that's a very productive pastime; not disimilar to collecting car number plates, or train spotting, for example.
I'd be inclined to suggest that it's used for reference purposes,
You seem to be implying that there's some contradiction between the two. I don't see any contradiction. A dictionary is useful for reference purposes because it records the present usage of words.
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
Which just goes to support the purpose for which I believe they're intended to be used. How much would you pay for some 'anorak's' train spotting or car number plate note books?
I think you misunderstand exactly how the meanings in a dictionary are intended to be read and comprehended. If 'large' was the operative word, why not just write 'large', and no more? That's a word that's probably open to less latitiude of meaning than 'massive' clearly seems to be! it's the qualifiers to 'large' that matter, hence the need for the numerous examples.
But let's look at it another way. I believe there's a big clue in the spelling of the word 'massive' to its intended meaning. Let's drop the suffix '-ive' for a moment. What are we left with? 'Mass'. Now, go look up 'mass' in your dictionaries and see what you find. Tell me, since when did 'mass' become a synonym for 'nothing', which is the essence of a hole? As I wrote before, I'm struggling to think of a more extreme contradiction. Think about it Doc. Consider for a minute that there might actually be some logic to this, and that the loose and wooly vagueries of sociological behaviour might not necessarily be a convenient hiding ground.
That's the point you're missing through your misunderstanding of how to comprehend dictionary entries and meanings. 'Massive' is simply not a synonym for 'large', as explained to you above.
Ah, yes, the "etymology determines meaning" fallacy. I already addressed this. Etymologicaly speaking, "loyal" and "legal" are the same word (one derives from Latin directly, the other through Old French. This is well documented.)
Since they are etymologically the same word, they must be synonyms. Or else this argument is simply wrong.
More succinctly,
Considered it. I've been considering it professionally for close to twenty years. It's just as wrong today as it was in 1987.
Or, more succinctly,
Yes, and you got it wrong.
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
That's it? That's all you're able to muster in your defence? OK, I'll infer the obvious from it then.
Cross-referring 'massive' to 'mass' to deduce its meaning is not etymology. Gee Doc, surely even you can see the flaw in your defence. You really are struggling with your word meanings here aren't you! I simply removed the suffix, which is no different in principle from removing the suffix '-ing' from 'jumping', for example, to help deduce the meaning of 'jump'.
'considering'! Oh yes, the suffix '-ing' can be so revealing can't it! 20 years and you still haven't got your head around it. I hope your paymasters, whoever they may be, consider that good value for money!
Debatable. I think your 'justification' for your assertion is equally succinct. In other words it counts for nothing.
Again, equally succinct. I would have thought that 20 years' consideration would have equipped you with the depth of thought to at least offer a seemingly plausible response, or are you heeding my earlier observation regarding your verbosity and finding yourself woefully short on reasoning ability?
No. That's all that's worth mustering.
You can't or won't read the references I already gave, so there's little point in providing more evidence.
Really? You don't think that "massive" derived, originally, from "mass"? Perhaps you think that it derived from the state between New York and Maine, instead?
... and you got it wrong. Similarly, a lightning bug is not electrical. A "square root" is neither square, nor part of a tree. A "peanut" is neither a pea, nor a nut,.... and for that reason, each word needs to be examined for meaning on its own merits.
If you want examples from derivational morphology, "interesting" is not related to the "interest" paid on a loan, and "filing" papers is not something you do with a rasp "file." Worrds drift apart in meaning, even from their ostensible roots.
Thank you.
There's nothing "implausible" about the observation that you're wrong.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Southwind - I now understand where you got your name.
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
You go from bad to worse Doc. Somebody's gonna be asking for a refund soon! You won't, or don't, even read my posts! How can you even hope to respond meaningfully if you don't? I did read your references, as I said. How could I have commented on them if I hadn't? You just didn't like what I had to say about them, because it destroyed your argument, that's all.
There, that proves you don't read them. Of course I think 'massive' derives from 'mass'. Indeed, I know so. I've even explained why I know so, and your acknowledging that they are linked only serves to support my argument, and discredit yours. Can you not see what you're doing to your supposed credibility here Doc?
I agree with all of these examples. But how are they relevant to the argument? I simply dropped a grammatical suffix to make a point; you've chosen a whole set of completely irrelevant words that don't even have grammatical suffixes to try to refute that point. How dumb is that? I can see why you chose not to be a lawyer as an alternative to getting paid by some naive employer for not knowing what you're talking about!
I agree with this; not all of the derivations, in this case 'interest', are intended to work with the '-ing' suffix', just like all instances of 'mass' are not intended to work with the same suffix. The point, however, which you conveniently miss, is that ALL proper uses of the word 'interesting' can be linked back to one of the meanings given for the word 'interest', and ALL proper uses of the word 'massive' can be linked back to the word 'mass'. There is no definition of the word 'mass' that includes, or even infers, 'hole', or 'nothing'. Can you see what I'm telling you now? Try logic! Your narrowness of thought, given that you allude to holding down a language-related profession or job, completely baffles me. What, exactly, do you get paid to do?
It was a criticism. Duh?!
Observing that somebody is wrong falls way short of demonstrating, or even arguing meaningfully, that they are. You really must try harder Doc if you want to avoid losing absolutely all credibility. It's to be hoped for your sake that your paymasters aren't reading this thread!
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
OK, based on what I've gleaned from this debate I'm going to summarily describe what I now believe the purpose of a dictionary, generically, is, regardless of how each individual publisher may describe their's therein. The premise for this description, as distinct from what might be stated in or deduced from my OP, is that some people have, I believe, shown themselves to be wrong in believing that a dictionary does not define the meaning of words, and that I have shown myself to be wrong in believing that the meaning of words should be limited essentially to their original meaning:
"The purpose of a dictionary, generally, is to define the meaning of words based upon their common usage in society."
I believe that this description accommodates the fact that we need to have a common, accepted reference point for vocabulary in order for language to remain coherent and largely consistent, but also the fact that the meanings of words do change over time. That's not to say that meanings are necessarily lost, but that one meaning might, over time, be promoted over another as regards its frequency of use. The 'relegated' meaning of the word will not be lost, but simply re-ranked to a lower position as regards its frequency of use. Dictionaries already purport to do this, as highlighted in one of the posts to this thread, but do they do it properly?
Some words seem not to appear in their proper place in the hierarchy. 'Gay' is a good example, which I'd be surprised to learn is not generally used more these days in society as a similie for 'homosexual' (adjective) or 'a homosexual person' (noun) than 'merry' or 'lively', as Dictionary.com, for example, would have us believe.
I believe that debate over the correct hierarchical arrangement of different meanings of words based on frequency of usage could well be a large part of the cause of the problem that both I in the OP, and Jerome above, refer to, and not necessarily the meanings themselves.
BTW - I maintain that the word 'massive', in the sense of a 'massive hole', is applied out of plain ignorance, the same as the apparent interchangeability of 'effect' and 'affect'. None of these three words' current meanings, per the dictionary, together with all other similar examples, therefore, are worthy of expansion accordingly. What's needed is education!
"The purpose of a dictionary, generally, is to define the meaning of words based upon their common usage in society."
I believe that this description accommodates the fact that we need to have a common, accepted reference point for vocabulary in order for language to remain coherent and largely consistent, but also the fact that the meanings of words do change over time. That's not to say that meanings are necessarily lost, but that one meaning might, over time, be promoted over another as regards its frequency of use. The 'relegated' meaning of the word will not be lost, but simply re-ranked to a lower position as regards its frequency of use. Dictionaries already purport to do this, as highlighted in one of the posts to this thread, but do they do it properly?
Some words seem not to appear in their proper place in the hierarchy. 'Gay' is a good example, which I'd be surprised to learn is not generally used more these days in society as a similie for 'homosexual' (adjective) or 'a homosexual person' (noun) than 'merry' or 'lively', as Dictionary.com, for example, would have us believe.
I believe that debate over the correct hierarchical arrangement of different meanings of words based on frequency of usage could well be a large part of the cause of the problem that both I in the OP, and Jerome above, refer to, and not necessarily the meanings themselves.
BTW - I maintain that the word 'massive', in the sense of a 'massive hole', is applied out of plain ignorance, the same as the apparent interchangeability of 'effect' and 'affect'. None of these three words' current meanings, per the dictionary, together with all other similar examples, therefore, are worthy of expansion accordingly. What's needed is education!
In other words, you're going state what you believe the purpose of a dictionary to be, overruling if necessary the people who actually produce dictionaries.
These "some people" including dictgionary publishers.
No. The purpose of a dictionary is to list the common, accepted, meanings of words. Not to define them.
This is demonstrably wrong; the English language was coherent and largely consistent prior to the publication of the first dictionary.
What that dictionary changed was not the coherency and/or consistency, but the accessibility to outsiders. If you spoke a regional dialect or were unfamiliar with the meanings of relatively rare words ("contrafibularity," anyone?), you could use the list given in the dictionary to access the words that you didn't know. But that doesn't mean that the dictionary defines the common meanings. It merely compiles them.
Not all. The OED is fairly explicit that it is a chronological list.
What's needed is education!
Yes. You still need massive amounts of education, because you affect knowledge in an area in which you are witlessly ignorant, and the effect is to make you into a pretentious and arrogant poseur.
Yes, unfortunately. You're telling me that you can't read.
In what way can a hole not be "large or imposing"?
Southwind - care to respond to this?