In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
rjack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Webster? WEBSTER. . . ?
>
>Whatever happened to the Oxford English Dictionary ?
It suffers from not being in my "dict" installation I suppose.
>Seems to me the English have always spoken the definitive
>English. . . that's why the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>
>> I have never claimed equivalence. What I have made claims about are
>> the properties of one of the meanings of a word. Specifically, m
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>
>Not as much "been" liberated, but "turned" liberated.
I expect that either way you split this hair, using "free" in the
sense
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George Neuner wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:36:40 + (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bent C
>Dalager) wrote:
>
>>
>>Only if you're being exceedingly pedantic and probably not even
>>then. Webster 1913 lists, among other meanin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Frank Goenninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Well, I didn't st
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Frank Goenninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Well, I didn't start the discussion. So you should ask the OP about the
>why. I jumped in when I came across the so often mentioned "hey, it's
>all well defined" statement was brought in. I simply said that if that
>
