>is defined by their definition and the communicator's intent,
>
>
>But "usage" requires comprehension by the listener. A dictionary
>definition, and a communicator whose face is red with righteous wrath
>isn't enough. Thus...
I would disagree. Usage seems to only require someone with intent to use a
word as they see it defined. A receiver is another step in the equation who
is responsible for interpretation. Although, certainly comprehension is
essential for truly effective communication, but that wasn't what we were
discussing, or we were discussing different things.
>If more Toyota Camrys are sold than any car
>and more red Toyota Camrys are sold than any other color, that does not
>mean that a
>car is only defined as a red Toyota Camry or that all Toyota Camrys are
>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!
Perhaps, but we aren't discussing imagined or popular cars. Just because
someone has a specific image in their head when they hear a word doesn't
mean there is no actual definition for that word, nor does it mean that the
person doesn't understand that.
For instance, if you say, "I Love my mother." The word "mother" may trigger
me to think of my mom. But I would not think you meant her. Nor would I
assume your mother and my mother looked alike or sounded alike or dressed
alike, etc.
So, regardless of common or popular examples stuck in our heads, there are
distinct definitions of both car and mother that preclude them from being
mistaken for each other, for instance. Yet there is still no definition of
blog that would preclude it from being mistaken as just another word for
website.
> >If I rip the rear view mirror off a car, it's still a car. But how
> >many parts can I remove until it ceases to be a car?
>
>One: the engine ;)
>
>
>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?
It is the body of a car. Give them a choice: is this a car or is this the
body of a car?
>but let's get
>back on point: what is unique and exclusive to a blog that makes it by
>definition different than a website?
>
>
>I won't discuss blogs until I prove to you that the conceptual
>fuzzyness of "blog" is equivalent to that of "car" or "mother",
That puts us at a bit of a stalemate. I cannot agree that "blog" is as fuzzy
as "car" or "mother" because it is not as sharp. In other words, as I stated
before: There is a definition of "car" and there is a definition of
"mother." Both are defined in terms that are specific, unique, and universal
to what they describe. You have not offered up the same for "blog."
It sounds like you want to get to a point where "If I strip this away is it
still a blog?" and I can play that game, but only if I know where we are
starting from. Give me a definition of "blog" that is specific to blogs,
unique to blogs, and universal to blogs first, so that we are both starting
from the same point.
>and not
>at all resembling the nonsensical pseudo-statements involved in
>theology, as you have so callously implied.
I went back and re-read the following (which I am fairly sure is what you
are referring to):
"Which, I suppose, sort of puts us back to the beginning. So, "blog" is
either indefinable because it is:
1) Infinite and awesome and our tiny human brains and our petty language
cannot begin to describe it. Like God, some might say.
2) Non-existent. Like God, some might say.
So therefore, either way blog=God. Perhaps we should end this here and go
worship our possibly non-existent master. :)"
I can definitely see how that might be taken in a way it was not intended. I
apologize if I offended you or anyone else. For what it is worth, the last
statement is meant to refer to worshipping (as in paying more attention,
which I have not done since this discussion started) blogs, not God.
I am about eight hours behind on my sleep and that number keeps growing. I
should have re-read my email before posting it when I was tired. I'm on a
crappy schedule that means I should be going to bed at 8pm, which isn't
happening. Excuses/reasons aside, I am truly sorry for my poor choice of
wording. It was a lame, sleep-deprived attempt at syllogistic humor. It was
stupid of me.
>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.
I can see where you are going with the car example. Sure, the parts of the
whole are not the whole and at some point the car stops being a car and
starts being car parts. However, the blog version doesn't hold up because
you haven't given me a specific, unique, and universal definition of "blog."
Without that I can not begin to tell you when something stops being a blog
or starts being a blog. And the list you've given -- (all websites with?)
periodic updates, RSS, and trackbacks -- excludes many sites considered to
be blogs and includes websites that are not.
Maybe, as someone suggested, we should simply agree to disagree. I am
certainly up for that. I have enjoyed the conversation and appreciate the
time you took to reply. Sorry again for the poor wording on that one post.
And I'd be happy to give you the last word on this all if you feel like
responding.
Thanks,
-David
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
