New Definitions: We don't need them.

Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
New Definitions: We don't need them.

This post is made primarily for the discussion of English speakers who use that language as a first language.  If you use the Queen's English as a second language and have never cried "ignorance of the langauge" as a defense to arguments, you may also feel welcome to comment. 

I have observed of late that some threads on the board are targeted at producing new definitions for extant words.  How do I know what the intend of the thread is?  Well, I see a question like, "What is the difference between A and B? Then, those fluent in English give dictionary and street definitions to A and B.  The native speakers are then rebuffed and told what the real definition is.

I would first state that I recognize that language exists so that people can exchange ideas and provide information.  I appreciate the plastic nature of language and am aware that it changes to meet the needs of the society using it.  Language may be plastic, but it is not fluid.  What I cannot accept are attempts to completely alter the meaning of a word for the purpose of a pseudo-intellectual discourse.

If the purpose of a word is to transmit a concept to another's thoughts or build another concept, then we do little good by going round altering definitions.  If I say "A rock is going to slam into your skull," I want the person to whom I speak understanding fully what is about to happen.  I dont want that person to think of an image a rock crushing a skull OR the image of a person eating pickled herring.  See?  The pickled herring image had better only go with pickled herring, or the fellow with the inbound rock is screwed.  I will admit that my example uses some very stable concepts.  Rock and pickled herring are probably not going to change a lot in meaning.  What I am seeing, however, is discussion of similarly well defined terms as if they had some ether to their meaning.

For example, the meanings of the words "analog" and "digital" are straightforward.  In fact, these words are so numbingly clear in their definitions that our language has few synonyms for them.  See, synonyms come about when we want to have shades of meaning.  So, if I want to tell someone I hate them,I have a scale to work with.  I might say, "Jim, I (hate, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, spurn, loathe, scorn, spurn) you."  Each of those words give a slightly different sense of the meaning.  This is due to the fact that people have varied feelings that all belong on the "hate" end of the spectrum.  "Analog" when set next to "digital," however, is crystal-fucking-clear in its meaning.  There are no synonyms because there are no degrees.  There is no need to discuss the definition because everyone already accepts it, like rock and pickled herring.

So, I conclude that arguing about the definition of well-defined words is folly at best.  We are only using the words to get the point across.  If you muddy already clearly defined words, then you start to destroy the ability to converse.  This should be clear to the native speakers of any language. 

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well put. I suspect this

Well put.

I suspect this concept ought to be clear to both native and non-native speakers who are familiar with basic linguistics. There have been a couple of posters recently who seem to think that they've won something when they can prove that they can redefine a word, and then suddenly a sentence that previously didn't make sense is coherent.

We can say that from now on we'll call a pile of shit a glass of champagne, but in the objective universe, it still is a bit harder to swallow.

Where it gets a little sketchy is when non-natives simply do not understand the definitions. I studied piano with a Russian for two years, and I was astonished that after more than a decade in the country, there were still English words that he would use incorrectly, even though his vocabulary was huge! Simply put, he had studied the dictionary in Russia, but without experiencing the culture, it's often hard to choose between definitions. Furthermore, there are non-native cultures that have lots of ESL speakers (English as a Second Language), and usage varies within these groups.

So, long story short -- everything you say is absolutely true. Words have meanings, and redefining them accomplishes little or nothing.

I am curious, though. I'm not a scientist. Is there another set of words that describes individual bits of separate existence as opposed to a continual flow of homogenous existence? This is not an area of science or philosophy I'm familiar with. If it had occured to me to ask that question, I'd have probably said analog and digital. I'd have just spent some time explaining what I meant afterwards.

(It never occurred to me to ask the question because I'll be damned if I can think of any way that it affects my life.)

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Hamby, I am happy to make

Hamby,

I am happy to make exceptions for true polyglots who use English as a secondary language.  I speak several languages myself and err in diction and grammar.  What I do not do is argue that my usage is correct in the face of a native speaker.  We are in agreement.

I have begun to study the mode of language of some of our "polyglots" and discovered interesting patterns.  I intend on sharing these observations later with the community at large.  The only thing I hate worse than a pseudo-intellectual is a hypocrite.

As for the issue of esse est percipi, I should think that we would generally describe our existence as "analog."  Who sees life as a slow running projector or a stobelight.  If someone does, that would be of interest.

Oh, by the bye, I will have difficulties drinking sparkling white wines now without also thinking of piles of shit.  Thanks for connecting the two for me. Foot in mouth

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Very nice post, Nero!  It

Very nice post, Nero!  It does drive me a bit nutty when a discussion degrades into a semantics mudfight.  If I remember correctly, I believe it was Marcusfish that commented that when a debate reaches that point it is over.  He was right.  Granted there are times when it is necessary for all parties to understand the initial intent of a word being used, but generally though a conversation the implied meaning can be discerned.  


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I have begun to

Quote:
I have begun to study the mode of language of some of our "polyglots" and discovered interesting patterns.  I intend on sharing these observations later with the community at large.  The only thing I hate worse than a pseudo-intellectual is a hypocrite.

I can't wait to read it!

I consider my monolinguist status to be one of my faults as a human being.

Hopefully one day I will have the time to devote to really learning a language.  Right now, all I have is a modest academic understanding of the romance languages, such that I have a vague idea of what things are talking about if I can read the print.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to disagree with

I'm going to disagree with the general premise of the OP. My claim is that there are legitimate times when it is appropriate to discuss the merits of various possible definitions of a word. Case in point: atheism. Now, most native english speakers use the word to mean an active belief that there is no god. We see the more general, more useful definition derived from etymology of 'lack of belief'. Which definition is better?

Actually that leads to my central point: Some definitions are better than others. Some people define culture as a set of practices, beliefs, art forms, etc. I define it as a stable memeplex. My definition is in fact more powerful than the simplistic 'set of X' definition because it can be used to help understand the propagation of culture, how it evolves, etc.

Think of a definition as a mini-theory. It describes how words fit together to make meaningful conceptual models. As a 'theory' it contains sub-concepts that are arranged in an orderly manner. For instance, my definition of culture involves the concept of 'meme' or 'memeplex'. These sub-concepts themselves have their own definitions, and as such one word connects to many others which connect to many others, and you have a giant inter-connected 'tree' of meaning.

So, definitions are not merely arbitrary, they reflect reality, in a similar way that scientific theories reflect reality. (Of course, some definitions, such as 'god', are arbitrary, but notice that they don't really reflect reality...). Thus, it can be valid to say that 'the majority of the native speakers who use the word 'atheism' use it incorrectly'. Or, more accurately you could say, 'the popular definition of atheism is not as useful as the atheists' definition of atheism'. 

While I agree that discussions can easily get bogged down in what many call 'semantics', I would in fact argue that all discussion is an attempt to clarify semantics (meaning) between two or more people.

Arguing definitions can be a huge waste of time. But it is also necessary sometimes. 

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!