[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: First and final word.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, J. Marie Hall wrote:
> --- "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca> wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, rhys daily wrote:
> > > however, as much strength, if not more, is given to the idiomatic
> > > definition of a word.
> >
> > Nice use of the passive voice, there. *Who* gives it this strength?
> > And why should that person's opinion matter?
>
> actually, i was under the impression that majority rules.
Not necessarily. But that's such a broad impression, and our parameters
so ill-defined, that I'm not really sure how that applies here.
> > . . . Sodom (the sin of which was *not* homosexuality) . . .
>
> not getting into that :)--but there is more than one hermeneutical take
> on the issue.
Sure. And some of them are more wrong than others.
> the thing is, it's been my experience that the paradigm that is usually
> associated with the more liberal interpretation of such issues is rarely
> stuck on taking issue prescriptively with this aspect of human behavior
> (i.e. language).
You mean, they don't pick apart words like "sodomite"? They may prefer
not to, but they kind of have to, whenever the "conservative" side brings
up arguments like, "But why do you think they call it sodomy?"
> > Sorry, even though I make as much use of the streets as anyone else,
> > "the common person" doesn't hold much sway with me.
>
> you're so magnanimous, taking the time to walk with them and all :)
"Them"? The common person, c'est moi. :)
> > It's not like he or she hasn't been wrong before.
>
> or you either, right?
If you mean I have been wrong before, then yes, you are right. Which is
why appealing to *any* person, just because they're a person, is
irrelevant. All our arguments have to have more substance than that.
> but the easy pegging of right and wrong here doesn't seem like much to
> stand on in general--especially since the queen's english itself grew
> out of something else, no doubt transgressing plenty. that is the
> language you speak, right? proper definitions and all?
I'm just saying that the word "tragedy" still has a meaning, which is used
fairly often, that is lost when people start throwing it willy-nilly at
everything that feels bad. Kinda like the word "enormity". It definitely
applies to yesterday's events, but not because those events were big.
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
References: