At 08:02 05-10-2002 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: >>>sophistry >>> >>>n : a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in >>>the hope of deceiving someone [syn: sophism] >>>Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University >>> >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>I'd say that's an accurate description of what he's doing. >> >>No, I am not using invalid arguments, nor am I trying to deceive anyone. >>I am trying to get the point across that a commonly used meaning of a >>word is not necessarily the (only) correct meaning. > >No, it's an apt description. You're deliberately defining a word in such a >way that said definition disagrees with eight dictionaries, an >encyclopedia and, incidentally, one that several native-English speakers >on the list also disagree with.
Wrong again. If I were doing that, I would be defining the word differently merely for the sake of disagreeing with your dictionaries and encyclopedias. But that is not what I am doing; I am trying to make you realise that words can also have meanings that differ from the most commonly used meaning, and not necessarily have to appear in a dictionary to be valid. Do you believe that a certain meaning of a word is only valid if it is listed in a dictionary? If your answer is "yes", would then any dictionary suffice, or does it have to be the OED or the Merriam-Webster? >Instead of trying to disprove the written authorities, you refuse to post >a shred of formal evidence that your position is accurate. Well, you refuse to accept plain and simple logic, so if you even refuse *that*, I doubt you will accept anything else as evidence either. So what if I find a dictionary somewhere that defines "anti-Semitism" as "hatred of Semites"? You will almost certainly dismiss it because it disagrees with you and your dictionaries of choice. Hell, I do not even need to look for a dictionary that gives my interpretation of the word -- William Goodall already found it: > From Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (the /other/ main British Dictionary) > >"Anti-Semite a hater of Semites, esp. Jews, or of their influence. - adj. >Anti-Semitic. - n. > >Semite n. a member of any of the peoples said (Gen. X) to be descended from >Shem or speaking a Semitic language. > >Semitic languages : Assyrian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic, Ethiopic >etc." Did you miss that post, or does a specific meaning have to be listed in the OED before you will accept it as valid? >Therefore, your argument is invalid because it is based on your false >assumption (that the term 'antisemitic' refers to non-Jews). The Chambers 20th Century Dictionary disagrees with you. So, do you refuse to accept that a word can have a valid meaning that differs from the most commonly used meaning? >If you were really trying 'to get the point across that a commonly used >meaning of a word is not necessarily the (only) correct meaning', you'd be >substantiating your claim with something more than your own opinion. I substantiated it with plain and simple logical reasoning. William Goodall also substantiated it with the definition given in the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (as quoted above). >>But hey, I am flattered to see that you believe I am displaying >>ingenuity! Thanks for the compliment! :-) > >I think you're being very creative. You seem to be verbally dancing in >every direction but towards actually backing up your claims with formal >evidence. (Which, btw, *I* did a couple of days ago.) Your "evidence" only shows that "Jew-hater" is the most commonly used meaning of the word "anti-Semite". It does not prove that the meaning "Semite-hater" is invalid. Jeroen "And now, back to studying" van Baardwijk __________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
