Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World

[Jon Gabriel]

I apologize to Jeroen for the delay in replying to this message. I did, however, send him an offlist message explaining why.

I am tired of circular arguments, and have zero interest or time in continuing this thread. I therefore am ending the argument with the following response:

From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intellectual output from the Arab World
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 21:10:48 +0200

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.

You didn't post substantiation for your claims, so that was certainly what you did. By the way, at this point in our conversation you essentially picked up random conversation threads in an effort to avoid answering my original questions. I'm sorry you found it necessary to do this rather than directly address my questions. I guess it was a more comfortable tactic for you than admitting you were wrong.

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.

No. When you have a discussion with someone, you need to agree on common definitions for terms. If I defined the word "sky" as "mud", it wouldn't be a correct use of the word no matter how hard we argue about it. Dictionaries allow us to work on common ground. Ignore five of the biggest authorities on English as source materials (which is what you are doing now,) and you deliberately make conversation impossible.

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?

I suspect this was your way of avoiding posting true substantiation, but I'll answer you anyway. There are 4 dictionaries which are published in unabridged form in both England and America that could be considered internationally recognized authoritative sources on the English language:

The Oxford English Dictionary
The Mirriam Webster Dictionary
The American Heritage Dictionary
Webster's Dictionary

Cambridge might be a fifth. I don't normally use it, but it is well known.

If Chamber's dictionary (based in Edinborough, Scotland) stands alone in it's definition of antisemitism against the above, I'd seriously doubt its accuracy. I also don't believe it's recognized as an international authority on the English language as is Mirriam Webster and the OED. By the way, as a matter of debate, I suppose one could argue the value of how a dictionary published in a country which constantly argues about whether English should be recognized as it's primary language (Gaelic and Scots are both considered 'surpressed' native languages in Scotland) could be an internationally recognized authority on English. :-)

Anyway, I'd say that if a word's definition appears equally in all of the 4 (and the fifth, incidentally) I listed above that it's accurate. I think it perfectly possible that other dictionaries might also be completely accurate, but they aren't considered widely-accepted authorities internationally on the English language.

If all four (or five) agree, their definitions are pretty much more precise and more accurate than anything else you could present. I'll be even clearer here: If four dictionaries that are THE widely-accepted authorities internationally on the English language agree completely on the definition of a word, in my mind, you would find it impossible to disprove them all. Since you have a problem admitting you were wrong, I'll just announce that you are and be done with it.

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.

Yet you fail to see your own dismissal of actual proof you're wrong. You're dismissing 4 or 5 pieces of solid source material because they disagree with you.

Your stance seems quite... illogical. But I guess it makes sense when looked at from another perspective. Rather than look at evidence the Earth was not the center of the Solar System, the Catholic Church excommunicated Galileo for publishing Nicolaus Copernicus' view of the Sun as the center of the Solar System in his work 'The Dialogue'. Fear makes a great blinder. I guess there's still hope though.... they did unexcommunicate him after a mere 350 years or so. :-)

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?

I explained above what dictionaries I'd accept, and my reasoning.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the FIVE agreeing dictionaries form an accurate quintet of authoritative source material.

So, do you refuse to accept that a word can have a valid meaning that differs from the most commonly used meaning?

Not in the least. But when five of the best English dictionaries om the world agree on a point, it's pretty hard to argue with 'em effectively.

Enough is enough. I'm tired of going in circles. I'm dealing with too WAY too much in RL to follow the threads I *want* to, much less argue with someone who finds it impossible to admit they are wrong. My side of this conversation is over. I only responded this time because I felt it would be rude to do otherwise.

Enjoy the last word.

Jon
GSV IAAMOAC

_________________________________________________________________
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l