Debating about words.

[michel]

A common theme, I have noticed, on this forum is that we all tend to have our own interpretation of the meanings of words.

As English isn't my first language, I often look up words - even ones that I have often used; I look upon that as purely educational. However, I have noticed that we have no Commonality of the meaning of words - which makes debating even harder than it ought to be. Yesterday, there was a thread in which I used dictionary definitions of words upon which to frame my reply - but was told that one word had been defined as 'something different' by a historical figure.

Anyone else "Suffer" from this problem ? Do you think that we should accept a common base (ie a specific dictionary) so that we all end up talking the same language?

 

[Melody]

If nothing else, we need to clarify which meaning we're using otherwise we have no clue what we're debating about.

 

[michel]

If nothing else, we need to clarify which meaning we're using otherwise we have no clue what we're debating about.

Exactly - I am not talking about words that we dicuss the meaning of like 'God' 'Devil' - I am talking about juat general words - for example Mythoklogy. (That was the one that gave me a problem yeasterday).

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

I have noticed that some debates are actually two people argueing in favor of the same thing, put being hung up on the words, they can't see that they are in fact saying the same thing.

The word evolution is a good example. It cannot be used to define the opposite to creationism. So they redifined it and now there is micr- and macro-evolution. But just because someone believes that God started the whole thing, does not mean that they do not believe that creatures evolve to survive the evoloving planet.

I have found the English language to be one of the most confusing languages. And it is my native language.

Just think of the letters 'ough'. They get sounded all sorts of ways.

Cough - rhymes with off
Though - rhymes with oh
Through - rhymes with moo
Bough - rhymes with wow
Tough - rhymes with stuff

And a few more:

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail
18)After a number of injections my jaw got number.
19) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
20) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests
21) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

 

[Lintu]

I had a whole course on this when I was in college studying linguistics. It's called semantics. It's actually a very interesting topic to study.

 

[michel]

Here is another example:-

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16205&page=3&pp=10 post #22.

 

[Fluffy]

A common theme, I have noticed, on this forum is that we all tend to have our own interpretation of the meanings of words.

As English isn't my first language, I often look up words - even ones that I have often used; I look upon that as purely educational. However, I have noticed that we have no Commonality of the meaning of words - which makes debating even harder than it ought to be. Yesterday, there was a thread in which I used dictionary definitions of words upon which to frame my reply - but was told that one word had been defined as 'something different' by a historical figure.

Anyone else "Suffer" from this problem ? Do you think that we should accept a common base (ie a specific dictionary) so that we all end up talking the same language?

Heya Michel,

In my opinion, the problem comes simply because of the nature of language. When I talk to somebody else, my intention is to try and convey to them what I am thinking. Therefore, the difference in meaning of my words do not come with my understanding of them but with the thoughts that form them in the given situation.

There are a number of key issues which I find I disagree with another person on purely based on the limits of language. This includes pedophilia, determinism, abortion, the nature of God etc.

What is important, however, is to remember that simply because a person on the opposite side of the debate uses a word which you interpret differently, does not mean that you have "won" the debate because of the subtle inferences between the 2 defintions. In order to sucessfully challenge an argument, you have to understand the exact meanings behind each word and counter those defintions. Introducing your own only complicates the matter.

I remember a recent thread in which Viva accused the Eastern Orthodox Chuch of being occultic. This was a clear demonstration of a misunderstanding of the word 'occultic', since almost all religions could be described under that term, however, to point that out, as I realised afterwards, is pointless. Viva was accusing that Chuch of the meaning which she understood to be true, the only way to counter it would be to get her to explain the arguments behind the assertion. Countering the defintion is a dodge, a good dodge, but still a dodge.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

[font=arial, Arial, Helvetica]One never wishes to give offense, but the most functional word in the English language is... well... sh**. Sorry about that.[/font]

[font=arial, Arial, Helvetica]But before you consider all of diverse and wondrous ways you can use this word, keep in mind that the etymology of the word is from the Indo-European root skei, which means "to divide" and the Old English scitan, "to defecate". Thus strictly speaking, sh** means to divide or cut (wastes) from the body. [1] It was not until the American Civil War that the word began its trek into the word books as the most functional.[/font]

[font=arial, Arial, Helvetica]Presenting the many uses of sh**, here they are... (drum roll, please...) [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can be sh** faced, sh** out of luck, or have sh** for brains. With a little effort, you can get your sh** together, find a place for your sh** or decide to sh** or get off the pot. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can smoke sh**, buy sh**, sell sh**, lose sh**, find sh**, forget sh**, and tell others to eat sh** and die. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some people know their sh**, while others can't tell the difference between sh** and shineola. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are lucky sh**s, dumb sh**s, crazy sh**s, and sweet sh**s. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is bull sh**, horse sh** and chicken sh**. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can throw sh**, sling sh**, catch sh**, shoot sh**, or duck when sh** hits the fan. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can give a sh** or serve sh** on a shingle. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can find yourself in deep sh**, or be happier than a pig in sh**. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some days are colder than sh**, some days are hotter than sh**, and some days are just plain sh**y. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some music sounds like sh**, things can look like sh**, and there are times when you feel like sh**. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can have too much sh**, not enough sh**, the right sh**, the wrong sh** or a lot of weird sh**. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You can carry sh**, have a mountain of sh**, or find yourself up a sh** creek without a paddle. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sometimes everything you touch turns to sh**, and other times you fall in a bucket of sh** and come out smelling like a rose. [/font]



​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]References:[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][1] Robert Hendrickson, The Facts of File Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, Checkmark Books, 2000. [/font]

 

[michel]

Heya Michel,

In my opinion, the problem comes simply because of the nature of language. When I talk to somebody else, my intention is to try and convey to them what I am thinking. Therefore, the difference in meaning of my words do not come with my understanding of them but with the thoughts that form them in the given situation.

There are a number of key issues which I find I disagree with another person on purely based on the limits of language. This includes pedophilia, determinism, abortion, the nature of God etc.

What is important, however, is to remember that simply because a person on the opposite side of the debate uses a word which you interpret differently, does not mean that you have "won" the debate because of the subtle inferences between the 2 defintions. In order to sucessfully challenge an argument, you have to understand the exact meanings behind each word and counter those defintions. Introducing your own only complicates the matter.

I remember a recent thread in which Viva accused the Eastern Orthodox Chuch of being occultic. This was a clear demonstration of a misunderstanding of the word 'occultic', since almost all religions could be described under that term, however, to point that out, as I realised afterwards, is pointless. Viva was accusing that Chuch of the meaning which she understood to be true, the only way to counter it would be to get her to explain the arguments behind the assertion. Countering the defintion is a dodge, a good dodge, but still a dodge.

But that is exactly my point - words are not there for us each, individually, to define them - that's why we have dictionaries.

What I was trying to advocate was the exeptance, by all members of the forum of one recognized dictionary so that we all KNOW what the word means, without having to try and out guess whoever we are talking to.

To me, this is almost like Maths; where one person is working on a base 10 system, someone else on base 8 say. We need a univesally accepted base meaning of words - that is my contention........

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

But that is exactly my point - words are not there for us each, individually, to define them - that's why we have dictionaries.

What I was trying to advocate was the exeptance, by all members of the forum of one recognized dictionary so that we all KNOW what the word means, without having to try and out guess whoever we are talking to.

To me, this is almost like Maths; where one person is working on a base 10 system, someone else on base 8 say. We need a univesally accepted base meaning of words - that is my contention........

This might be a little difficult. I have bee very sure of the definition of a word, to find that there were other ways to use it. Vain is a perfect example. When I would hear 'don't take the Lord's name in vain', I would think of a song that goes "you're so vain, you probably think this song is about you, you're so vain. . . .".

But I found that it can also mean 'with out results'. Like when someone makes a vain attempt at something. This definition made more sense to me since the Lord's name is I am. I could not understand how someone could say "I am" with out it being 'in vain'. But when you use the second definition of 'vain', it makes more sense.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What I was trying to advocate was the exeptance

Here is the real issue Michel. The word you were looking for was "acceptance", and the word you used could have meen misinterpreted as "exception" which is opposite of what you were trying to say. If someone were trying to "Win" an argument with you, than they would have twisted the latter with vehemence. I have had SO MANY people tell me just WHAT they think I believe by twisting what I said that it just weighs on my soul. I must say, that I usually try and patiently re-state my case. However, not being perfect (by anyone's definition), I will sometimes turn around and twist what they are saying just to give them a taste of their own medicine. Spinks and Deut are the chief perpetrators and subsequent recipients for me. (Was that a confession, or what? ) No matter the reasoning, twisting what others say only ups the emotional ante, and stops further discussions from occuring. I apologise for my past indiscretions, though I will not guarantee that it won't happen again.

I come here to discuss issues. Sometimes I feel the need to expose fallacious thinking, sometime I feel the need to express my own beliefs. But more than anything, I am here to learn and to serve. I believe if we take the time, then we don't need to "score points" in our debates. Let's patiently discuss our views and if that means clarifying a definition or two, then fine. I agree that dictionaries are wonderful, but they aren't perfect either.

 

[michel]

You are quite right, of course - the "acceptance" was the totally wrong word to use; looking back on it, I find myself wondering how on earth I managed to spell that so badly - I hope it is an exception!I have a most unfortunate character trait, and I believe that this is just another example of it - I Need accuracy; I want every 'i' dotted, and every 't' crossed, and that is something that has held me back in so many aspects.

I wasn't even talking about this for the reason of 'winning' or scoring points - just trying to satisfy my usual need to 'accuracy'. I will also 'confess' as to makes me feel inadequate in debates - the same person who often comes back with what I see as 'aggression' should I misinterpret a certain word.

At least you have put this in perspective for me; there are times when I have a need to have something that is so totally obvious to every one else explained to me in words of few syllables...........

Thanks.
You must spread some Karma around before giving it to NetDoc again.:banghead3

 

[Fluffy]

But that is exactly my point - words are not there for us each, individually, to define them - that's why we have dictionaries.

What I was trying to advocate was the exeptance, by all members of the forum of one recognized dictionary so that we all KNOW what the word means, without having to try and out guess whoever we are talking to.

To me, this is almost like Maths; where one person is working on a base 10 system, someone else on base 8 say. We need a univesally accepted base meaning of words - that is my contention........

Agreed except that their are differences in defintion even within the same dictionary. Plus such a method is not adequate for debating all aspects of life.

For example, the definition of omnipotence, from "www.dictionary.com" is "One having unlimited power or authority". The key word being unlimited. However, many people, would still put limits onto an omnipotent being, such as being unable to do the illogical whilst being unable to explain how an omnipotent being could create a rock he couldn't lift without losing his omnipotence and so include another caveate. All of this is from one defintion of the word (a badly worded one, I might add since via since by such a defintion I could say that the Pope is omnipotent on papal matters.)

Afterall, why else do you think 2 people could get vastly different ideas about God from an indentically translated copy of the Bible? Its all to do with interpretation and the fact that in order to define words, we must use more words, each with their own differing defintions.