To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 5922
5921  |  5923
Subject: 
Re: Age limitations
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:21:31 GMT
Viewed: 
202 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:

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.

Erik said the magic word. Give that man a hundred dollars (on a tile).

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.

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 members. The
rest of us can observe and offer suggestions but we are not stakeholders. There
are two questions here, I think, the specific question of what NELUG can and
should do, which is NELUG business, and the general question of what is a good
thing for a LUG to do in the general case.

I think NELUG has made the wrong decision in the general case but just as when
I disagree with something Todd does, but support it just the same, it's a
matter of the property rights involved. Free association includes the right not
to associate.

Further, the current MW is indeed a muddle.  What grave portents for the future
of our language, I say.

++Lar



Message is in Reply To:
  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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR