"Language is comprised of words and terms, all of which have a factual meaning. These can be referenced in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other sources."
And just where do you think those meanings came from? Who imbued these words with meaning if not "us" ("Us" being human society)? He is correct that "words mean what we decide they mean". No, that does not mean that you and you alone can change the definition on a whim. Some words meanings have changed and evolved over time, such as the word "race", which now means, among other things, "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock," or "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics." That you personally refuse to acknowledge this definition does not make it invalid. And that you choose to only acknowledge the original definitions does not make your interpretation the correct one, it only means your view is outdated.
I also see you like referring to anyone who doesn't share your view as a "brain-dead idiot". This adds nothing to either your argument nor the conversation at hand and only serves to create divisions between us.
Please be more conscientious in your use of terminology during the pleasant discourse of conversation and stop creating divisions in society.
Thank you.
"It would be better if you did discuss something meaningful, instead of your consistent yammering!"
Are you addressing yourself in this sentence?
"I apologise, but I can't paint a picture of a 'dog', neither can you. Most dogs look very much superficially different from one another."
Irrelevant. The third definition of "a" as used in this context is "one single; any." One can paint a picture of a (any) dog if he has sufficient artistic skill; one does not need to specify the specific dog to be painted to simply paint any dog.
Most of the words which we use today have their origins in a Proto-Indo-European language or Sanskrit.
That's who imbued these words with meaning. Our (some of us) ancestors back on the Indian Subcontinent.
You have addressed exactly one point of argument in my post (and not very well, as you fail to explain how it justifies your disregard of the fact that meanings of words evolve over time). Are you planning on just ignoring everything else in my post and continue to falsely assume your viewpoint is justified when it is demonstrably flawed?
I do not dispute that languages evolve over time, but the English language, especially, has become so polluted, of late, that we are in danger of falling into a state where we become mutually unintelligible to one another.
This has repercussions in the real world, as our progress has stagnated, and we are continually fighting with one another, usually over pointless arguments.
Your argument is weak. It relies on nebulous, unfalsifiable claims rather than that which can be quantified. For example,
"I do not dispute that languages evolve over time, but the English language, especially, has become so polluted"
How does the word "polluted" work in this context? You seem to be implying that any changes made to the language somehow diminish the language, yet you do not explain how or why. Or are some changes good and some bad? How do you determine which is a natural evolution of the language and which is a "pollutant"? Personal preference? ("The English language has evolved to have "race" mean "a contest of speed", however it is polluted by the definition of "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock"!")
"that we are in danger of falling into a state where we become mutually unintelligible to one another."
You could say the same thing about the fact that there exist different kinds of cheese; that's the thing about unfalsifiable statements: You sound like you're saying something meaningful, but upon closer inspection, you're not really saying anything of any value at all.
"This has repercussions in the real world, as our progress has stagnated, and we are continually fighting with one another, usually over pointless arguments."
Same as above; an unfalsifiable statement.
If you wish to believe these things, that is your prerogative. But please do not continue to spam your unfounded beliefs here as if they were fact when they are nothing of the sort.
Thank you.
(By the way, this is an example of being direct in an argument. Take note of how I directly quoted what you said and addressed exactly what was wrong with it. Note that I did NOT need to quote irrelevant and unnecessarily long sources nor did I break from the argument to expound upon my beliefs. Could you try to do the same in the future?)
Is it normal that I am against interracial relationships
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"Language is comprised of words and terms, all of which have a factual meaning. These can be referenced in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other sources."
And just where do you think those meanings came from? Who imbued these words with meaning if not "us" ("Us" being human society)? He is correct that "words mean what we decide they mean". No, that does not mean that you and you alone can change the definition on a whim. Some words meanings have changed and evolved over time, such as the word "race", which now means, among other things, "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock," or "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics." That you personally refuse to acknowledge this definition does not make it invalid. And that you choose to only acknowledge the original definitions does not make your interpretation the correct one, it only means your view is outdated.
I also see you like referring to anyone who doesn't share your view as a "brain-dead idiot". This adds nothing to either your argument nor the conversation at hand and only serves to create divisions between us.
Please be more conscientious in your use of terminology during the pleasant discourse of conversation and stop creating divisions in society.
Thank you.
"It would be better if you did discuss something meaningful, instead of your consistent yammering!"
Are you addressing yourself in this sentence?
"I apologise, but I can't paint a picture of a 'dog', neither can you. Most dogs look very much superficially different from one another."
Irrelevant. The third definition of "a" as used in this context is "one single; any." One can paint a picture of a (any) dog if he has sufficient artistic skill; one does not need to specify the specific dog to be painted to simply paint any dog.
--
suckonthis9
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Most of the words which we use today have their origins in a Proto-Indo-European language or Sanskrit.
That's who imbued these words with meaning. Our (some of us) ancestors back on the Indian Subcontinent.
--
Charmo
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You have addressed exactly one point of argument in my post (and not very well, as you fail to explain how it justifies your disregard of the fact that meanings of words evolve over time). Are you planning on just ignoring everything else in my post and continue to falsely assume your viewpoint is justified when it is demonstrably flawed?
--
suckonthis9
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I do not dispute that languages evolve over time, but the English language, especially, has become so polluted, of late, that we are in danger of falling into a state where we become mutually unintelligible to one another.
This has repercussions in the real world, as our progress has stagnated, and we are continually fighting with one another, usually over pointless arguments.
--
Charmo
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Your argument is weak. It relies on nebulous, unfalsifiable claims rather than that which can be quantified. For example,
"I do not dispute that languages evolve over time, but the English language, especially, has become so polluted"
How does the word "polluted" work in this context? You seem to be implying that any changes made to the language somehow diminish the language, yet you do not explain how or why. Or are some changes good and some bad? How do you determine which is a natural evolution of the language and which is a "pollutant"? Personal preference? ("The English language has evolved to have "race" mean "a contest of speed", however it is polluted by the definition of "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock"!")
"that we are in danger of falling into a state where we become mutually unintelligible to one another."
You could say the same thing about the fact that there exist different kinds of cheese; that's the thing about unfalsifiable statements: You sound like you're saying something meaningful, but upon closer inspection, you're not really saying anything of any value at all.
"This has repercussions in the real world, as our progress has stagnated, and we are continually fighting with one another, usually over pointless arguments."
Same as above; an unfalsifiable statement.
If you wish to believe these things, that is your prerogative. But please do not continue to spam your unfounded beliefs here as if they were fact when they are nothing of the sort.
Thank you.
(By the way, this is an example of being direct in an argument. Take note of how I directly quoted what you said and addressed exactly what was wrong with it. Note that I did NOT need to quote irrelevant and unnecessarily long sources nor did I break from the argument to expound upon my beliefs. Could you try to do the same in the future?)