Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:10:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
98 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us, Erik Olson writes:
> In lugnet.org.us, Frank Filz writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us, Erik Olson writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.us, Frank Filz writes:
> > > > In lugnet.org.us, Erik Olson writes:
> > > > > I can only conjecture about what NELUG wants to be, because I've never met • with
> > > > > them. Frank talks about his "somewhat vested interest", but really, has • Frank
> > > > > joined the club or not?
> > > >
> > > > I haven't joined, and in all seriousness, probably would not join because • of
> > > > this rule (and note that my main vested interest in a New England/Boston • based
> > > > LUG would be to point my nephew, who is under 18, to).
> > >
> > > OK. Normally "vested interest" means you've already invested something, • money
> > or
> > > effort, or you own the land underneath it. Like the members of a club have. • It
> > > sounds like you have a "interest".
> >
> > Well, since you're getting technical, I'll quote the definition of "vested
> > interest" from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary Second Edition:
> >
> > ] vested interest
> > ] 1. a special interest in an existing system, arrangement, or institution
> > ] for particular personal reasons. 2. a permanent right given to an employee
> > ] under a pension plan.
> >
> > Well, #1 exactly describes my interest, so I believe I am using the term
> > correctly.
>
> I think you have the opposite, because you don't like the existing system. You
> think you stand to gain by a change---therefore you are on the other side from
> the "already vested".
>
> Webster's is more precise. I rely on the 1967 edition, which emphasizes
> 'existing privilege'. 1. a: an interest carrying a legal right of present or
> future enjoyment and of present alienation b: an interest (as in an existing
> political, economic, or social arrangement) in which the holder has a strong
> personal commitment. 2 : one having a vested interest in something and esp. an
> existing economic or political privilege.
>
> www.m-w.com has since corrupted Webster, adding the annoying #2 definition in
> our time, which maybe fits you, but is really "special interest". Instances • like
> this, by the way, are why I look for better precision in older dictionaries.
> (I'm on record on Lugnet on this.)
Just one quick note on this... One reason newer dictionaries may change
meanings is because the langauge has evolved. Now one can argue about the
purity of language all they want, but if you want to be a stickler, you'd
better go to a much older dictionary than a 1967 dictionary since the English
language has been evolving for centuries.
My use of vested interest may still be wrong, but it is my feeling that usage
of the term the way I am using it is common (even though it is clearly
different from vested interest in a retirement fund).
However, I don't think this discussion needs to continue. I think we both now
understand what my interest is, which is ultimately what is important in
communication.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I'm familiar with this argument, it's a false alternative. Yes, language changes. No, I won't take a centuries old dictionary, but I think I can learn more from an older dictionary than the muddle that is Random House today. The first purpose (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
