David Yirchott wrote:
But "usage" requires comprehension by the listener. A dictionary definition, and a communicator whose face is red with righteous wrath isn't enough. Thus... If more Toyota Camrys are sold than any car and more red ... if the overwhelming number of Camrys are red, then the prototypical Camry becomes red, and when people hear the word they will imagine that particular type of red car, and a person can say "the color of a Camry" and listeners will understand -- even though a few blue Camrys exist!
So, if I bring someone to an apparently intact car, open the hood, and reveal the engine lacking, I should expect most people to turn to me and say "That is not a car"? Are you willing to stand by that as a prediction of the behavior of English speakers, or do you want to re-think this? but let's get I won't discuss blogs until I prove to you that the conceptual fuzzyness of "blog" is equivalent to that of "car" or "mother", and not at all resembling the nonsensical pseudo-statements involved in theology, as you have so callously implied. We can go no further until you agree that, even though we all know what a "car" is, and we all agree that a heap of parts is not a car, we cannot agree upon a specific point at which the carness vanishes and the item becomes a bunch of parts. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figurin... Charles HOPE
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's fi... Pete Prodoehl
- Re: [videoblogging] Re: OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's fi... David Yirchott