Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Okay. I think it's reasonable to assume that conversations on this forum tend to be more technical, rather than colloquial. Also, I guess this was a really short-lived topic.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, aall that's required is agreement, which only requires that we agree that, when I use a word, you understand what I mean, and vice versa. This is why works on technical subjects include glossaries, so that you can determine what the author means when he uses words that don't have a fully technical definition previously agreed on.Problem is, that we can not hold a proper conversation with people of all backgrounds internationally like that psikhrangkur, also that, at times, a referee is needed ... and thats kinda the dictionary, isnt it?
[/QUOTE]And to be honest, the english language is small and cute, not the most useful to illustrate complex matters ... we would all have to learn German(They actually got a tense for something you maybe planned to do in the future 20 years ago, if you traveled to the past) if you wanna go hardcore.
There are those of us with considerable expertise in English, and I absolutely promise I have more expertise in English than did Shakespeare, and my expertise in philosophy of language leaves him in the dust, largely because I have the intervening 400 years of progress in these areas of thought that he didn't have access to.Sides, gotta face it, you or me .. we aint no Shakespheare, lingustic experts or foremost experts in our field. We simply do not get to argue language outside of philosophy. I ll apologize if, by chance, anyone here actually is though.
Agreed, and understanding comes through clarity. Poor definitions, especially in technical subjects, muddy the waters. The discussion that spurred this was a discussion on a technical subject. The definition for macroevolution you gave was poor for that precise reason, because it reduces to 'macro is just lots of micro', which is misleadingly incorrect. People go away with the impression that macroevolutionary processes take a long time and can't be observed when, in fact, macroevolution is much more subtle than that.Addendum: Sides, the smart way to explain things, is in a way that everyone understands.
Or an even more specialised on, such as the glossary in a philosophical tract...Or even a more specialised one. such as a subject-specific dictionary (medical, etc.).
Words are models we have in our heads. Any time spent in discussion with anybody beyond purely milquetoast language will reveal easily that the models we each carry are different, and that's a huge number of variables, which engenders ambiguity. In fact, I'd posit that 'look it up in a dictionary' is the ultimate progenitor of the 'google it yourself' fallacy.
I fart in your general direction.... and frankly Shakespeare would be entirely out of his depth in the modern world linguistically.
I always thought dictionaries were based on surveys taken that ask people to describe what a certain word means to them. Is this correct?@hackenslash @21st Demon Lord
I figured it might be better to move the language bit, hopefully this is a good spot for it.
I have to ask, though: Demon, when a new edition of a dictionary has an altered definition for a word, is it your opinion that the authors of said dictionary have declared to the world at large that, henceforth, this word will mean this thing?
No. Words are researched by teams of researchers trawling (mostly) print publication, although of course the tendency is toward digital publications as the net continues to take over. When a word comes into popular use, the tendency is to go and find the earliest printed source and start there.I always thought dictionaries were based on surveys taken that ask people to describe what a certain word means to them. Is this correct?
See, every time I start to think maybe I was too harsh, you go and say something as utterly fucking stupid as this.But that doesnt qualify as language.