On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kirk Fraser <overcomer....@gmail.com>wrote:
> Liberal dictionaries have definitions that are by default wrong.
There's no such thing as "liberal dictionaries".
> For evidence of language decay, read definitions from the 1988
> Webster's Collegiate vs. the current Webster's. Pure word and definition
> is needed to understand truth.
There's no such thing as "pure words". Language is a dynamic, evolving,
feedback-driven entity that grows and adapts to new conditions, with
meanings of words broadening ("dog"), narrowing ("hound"),
shifting("computer") etc.
> People who love to lie get along without words meaning things.
...I won't comment on that nonsense.
> For example the current political fight on "marriage" demonstrates some
> people couldn't care less for truth, only for employer's spouse benefits to
> be shared with roommates.
"Political fight on marriage"? I don't live in the US, so I have little
understanding what you're talking about, but the word "marriage" seems to
be applied in most cultures over the globe for some sort of binding social
contract between individuals related to nurturing younglings for the next
generation, yielding vastly different rights and obligations from such
union across the different cultures. This makes the meaning of the word
"marriage" highly contextual. (But I admit freely that my understanding of
cultural anthropology is limited to having skimmed through the Encyclopedia
of World Cultures. It was worth it, though - and quite fascinating at that.)
- Gath
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
