Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 06:47:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
162 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> 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.
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 of a definition is to make your own thinking more precise, not
first to settle a debate. When I look in a dictionary I want to know: what is
essential to this thing? The numbered definitions list related uses that should
reveal a concept in common. (when they do not, the word gets extra entries that
restart from 1.)
You can call me a purist, but I'm concerned with the logic, not conformity to
the book. I think Merriam-Webster (today's) does indicate what people are
currently using: two senses of the term, of which #2 is more vague, and more
recent. (#3 is akin to #1.) My opinion is that #2 is sloppier. But then, it
reflects our times: people think that if they happen to feel strongly about
something, then they have some kind of right. A 'vested interest' in the sense I
am preferring is a species of property right.
And I'll leave it at that. I'm sure there's an application to our present issue
but I'll agree if you think it's all been stated plain enough.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Erik said the magic word. Give that man a hundred dollars (on a tile). (...) I'm not sure it has. And I'm with Erik on this. Those with vested interests, and therefore those with standing to decide, are the NELUG members, and only the NELUG (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) of (...) money (...) It (...) like (...) 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 (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
