Jump to content
xisto Community
Sign in to follow this  
=EKM=Mycenae

I Have Decided That Dictionary.com Is Invalid In Debate

Recommended Posts

This is because they almost always incorporate common usage in the definition. It is my contention that common usage is not always correct and that the only acceptable way to define a word is by it's root and suffix. For instance, the dictionary defines "decimate" as " to destroy or kill a large part of (a group). " With only the last definition adhering to the latin root, deci (meaning tenth) and correctly defining it as "to select by lot and kill one in every ten of." Now, we could have had a perfectly good word for "to reduce by one tenth" but instead we have yet another synonym for "to greatly reduce," ?obliterate,? ?destroy,? ?annihilate? or "lay waste to." It wouldn't be a widely used word, but it would be specific and direct when it was.Some people think common usage is how language evolves. I have concluded that common usage is how language deteriorates over time. It is the mixture of languages and the creation of new words that makes language "evolve" and become more expressive. This is why english is so very successful and expressive: it incorporates words from other languages and creates new ones for specific meanings.Common usage, on the other hand, does the opposite. Words that are already in the language acquire additional meanings and synonyms as their incorrect use becomes more widespread and accepted. The logical extent of this trend is that eventually all the words in a language will be synonyms of each other and all speech will become indirect, unspecific and ultimately incoherent, defeating the purpose of language.I am speaking, of course, only in the context of semantic debate. I am not suggesting we all abandon synonyms in our conversations (then I couldn?t call someone a douchebag), but if the definition of a word is disputed in a resolution or contention, common usage is inherently inadmissible and only the root of the word my decide its meaning for the purpose of the debate.This also means that atheist and anti-theist are not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common usage is one of the way language evolves. I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that this is not so. Just stating that you believe the oposite does not make it true. If this were not so you you would have to concede that awful ment only "deserving of awe" and not "bad or unpleasant", or silly means happy or blessed, but not foolish, or how about mouse, the definition of mouse should be furry little rodent, but what about the device used on computers to move the cursor around the screen, is that not a mouse. I could list thousands of words whos meanings have changed over time due to common use, and as these changes have become more widely used they eventurally became part of the english language. Now I will agree that lately people have been a little too free with this, willing to accept slang and bad grammer as common use.

 

I would also agree that dictionary.com is not the best source for definative definitions, Merriam-Webster is a much better source, but I don't agree that it should be discounted all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah....sometimes, like, when there is a word that looks like it could be spelled either way, they put both in and stuff. I mean, it could be right and it could not be, and the best way to verify is to take a look at your real dictionary on your table top. However, too many people are too lazy so they just trust dictionary.comDictionary.com is really only good for words used everyday...that's why the whole common usage thing. It's almost like Urbandictionary.com, except a little more sophisticated...i suppose. It's still good....as it gets the point across.The thing on the atheist and anti-theist thing.....the prefix 'a' means 'without' so, 'without theism' basically. I dunno. I guess you're right.It's usually best to leave out definitions from dictionary.com because sometimes it could be wrong, and when you state that you got the definition from an Internet website, people laugh at you in debates....but when you say you got the definition from your oxford dictionary, people also laugh at you for taking the time to do that....I dunno. Dictionary.com just shouldn't be used as a reference for more serious things. But who cares right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.