Manafi's Dream
フェアリータイプタイム
Not that I don't semi agree but citing an exact definition as a case to ALWAYS use exact definitions isn't exactly the best argument.
It's an original one, though, using the definition of definition
Not that I don't semi agree but citing an exact definition as a case to ALWAYS use exact definitions isn't exactly the best argument.
In formal writing, yes. In common parlance, no.
Given in a generous or openhanded way: Not literal: Marked by Generosity.Liberal
Liberal, for example, is an adjective of liberalism; the ideology that individuals have certain rights and that no person has more rights than another. However, in America, the word liberal is misunderstood to mean 'left-wing' or 'progressive'.
Liberal isn't a very common word, as in it's not something most people use every single day of their lives. You're right that it indeed has different meanings, but it depends on the time and place and context. "Apply liberally" on a bottle of sunscreen probably doesn't mean the same thing when Rush Limbaugh says "Liberals are ruining the country",
lol.Are you sure? I think some people might want to stop global warming by using too much sunscreen! (Joke.)
All this is well said. Also, you're right with the 'yes/no' bit; what is with people and Manichean scenarios?In any case, language does change, and words do gain new usages. I don't think that it can be stated that these new meanings are absolutely wrong, as much as they make it slightly more difficult for people to communicate while speaking a living language.
I don't think the poll can be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No."
Ludwig said:Using a word differently than it's definition defeats the purpose of having a language.
Language always has a purpose if both the conveyer and reciever of information both understand the same thing. It's the reason why language changes but our ability to communicate and understand communication has only improved. Considering that words such as paranoia have a secondary meaning that is widely understood (over-cautiousness), I think it'd be wrong to label said secondary definition "incorrect".
1. You didn't write anything about my argument for that statement, so I assume that you decided not to because you wouldn't find a flaw, meaning that I win the debate.
2. The secondary "meaning" wasn't widely understood when it was used as that the first time, so any changes would start as not being understood.
The word is used differently than what its meaning implies, that by itself says that it's defeating the purpose of the word having a meaning. (Wrote that in case my other argument is too difficult for you to comprehend).
Your whole argument is flawed because language is ever evolving. If it were not we would still be conversing in grunts and clicks. Guess I win huh.
A language needs defined words to be a language (meaning that it's part of the definition of a language, but due to lack of effort, I haven't found a good definition for language, but it seem obvious enough for me to use it without source). This is the main criteria for a language and is (again, without source) the reason why it's used.
Due to lack of sources, this is rather assumptions than a facts, but assuming that above theory is true, not using the definitions in the language would remove that reason for having the language.
A language needs defined words to be a language (meaning that it's part of the definition of a language, but due to lack of effort, I haven't found a good definition for language, but it seem obvious enough for me to use it without source). This is the main criteria for a language and is (again, without source) the reason why it's used.
Due to lack of sources, this is rather assumptions than a facts, but assuming that above theory is true, not using the definitions in the language would remove that reason for having the language.
Although the meaning of words might not change, the context in which they are used does. Take the acronym "lol" for example. The definition is laugh out loud, but honestly, how many of you actually laugh verbally when you use lol? Instead of "Oh, your remark made me laugh" it is now used as "I have nothing else to say in this awkward situation."
The words still have meanings, but they just change. Language is similar to a species. It WILL change over time, but not through some instantaneous change because of some super powerful force, but though natural selection, which can be applied in both cases here.
Polish (to make smooth and glossy, especially by rubbing or friction: to polish a brass doorknob.) or Polish (Anything from or related to Poland, a country in Europe)A language needs defined words to be a language (meaning that it's part of the definition of a language, but due to lack of effort, I haven't found a good definition for language, but it seem obvious enough for me to use it without source). This is the main criteria for a language and is (again, without source) the reason why it's used.
Due to lack of sources, this is rather assumptions than a facts, but assuming that above theory is true, not using the definitions in the language would remove that reason for having the language.