Jeroen wrote: > I could write my own reply to that, but William Goodall already wrote > something that qualifies as an excellent response to what you are saying, > so I will just quote it here: > > >Dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive: that is they describe > >how words *are* used not how words *ought* to be used. Additionally they are > >inclusive rather than exclusive: if a usage is in a dictionary that means > >that some people have used the word that way, but if a usage is not in a > >dictionary that does not mean that the word has not been used that way by > >some people.
When we are discussing meaning of words, it is imperative that we rely upon dictionaries, because they are THE sources that tell us HOW A WORD IS USED. If I decide that "blue" ought to mean "green", I can with justification be called wrong on that, because the *commonly accepted definition* is that "blue" does not mean "green". You and William are both arguing that the common and authoritative definition of a word is wrong. Near as I can tell, NOT ONE SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE ON WORD USAGE OR ETYMOLOGY has agreed with your position. You are in the position of (metaphorcally) arguing that up is down. That's stupid. I refuse to waste my time teaching a pig to sing. Root, hog. Enjoy your blissful ignorance. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
