|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
Sigh. Well it seems that the great white hope has bit the dust too so I'll guess I'll just continue on alone. Bitter pill. I wish to high hell that someone somewhere gave a swinging damn.  Ok let's take an apple. An apple is good food so maybe the earliests of linguists had a name for it and that name might have been "yum". But of course one yum is not all yums because some yums are rotten and other yums are straight. The point here is that no apple is exactly the same as any other apple but for economy our language compromises the differences. (this is an important thought, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it.) Rotten apples, red apples, sour apples, wormy apples, little green apples, love apples, and so forth. We have more words for apple than the now defunct Eskimos had for snow. Are they words or phrases? Go ask a German...they are "thoughtunits". Now there is another class of words that have use only in the context of a social imperative. These are abstractions like "love" "honor" and "obey". Remember this and remember it well in case I am struck down from this board for heresy or trolling... NO WORDS HAVE ABSOLUTE MEANING, BUT ALL WORDS HAVE ABSOLUTE FUNCTION And no. The meaning of words is not "absolute function? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
the matter is whether or not words, by their very nature, can lock in meaning between diverse cultures and prevent the adulteration of key words through time
Hey, I didn't bite the dust, themilum. I just wasn't around much this past weekend.
I think we are agreed. Words mutate. So, there is no way to lock them up.
And many words are understood differently by different groups which share the same language even within the same culture. And, of course, the meaning of a word is even more elastic when it moves beyond national borders. Sweden and Denmark share many of the same words but, as I learned last night on the radio, some perfectly respectable words in Sweden are offensive in Denmark.
I assume you would argue from here, themilum, that every culture or micro-culture understands words differently and, therefore, they should interpret those words for themselves, without regard to the meaning attributed to those words in other cultures [for instance, in other states of the Union, or in other countries].
Would I have that right, themilum?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529 |
In reply to:
I assume you would argue from here, themilum, that every culture or micro-culture understands words differently and, therefore, they should interpret those words for themselves, without regard to the meaning attributed to those words in other cultures [for instance, in other states of the Union, or in other countries].
Would I have that right, themilum?
No, theplutarch, your answer is part of the question.
The question being...
To what degree can words be definite in meaning across
cultural and individual interpretations? Already we have implicitly agreed that each interpretation of a information unit is unique;
whether interpreted by different cultures or
by different individuals or by the same individual
at all different times.
Have we not?
(I will now private mail Plutarch and beg him to come back and respond to this post because he is the only regular so far who has openly and honestly contributed to this theme without changing the subject to whims and things.)
Edit: Opps! Faldage forgive me. I should not have included you in the group of wanderers.
As most always your remark was terse and addressing a point.
I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Dear themilum:
As a former member I do not think I can post here and remain consistent with my principles, but you seemed to have appealed to a higher principle, at least with respect to this particular exchange. :)
I don't think I can add much to this discussion which hasn't already been said, themilum, but it seems disrespectful to say nothing at all, especially in reply to you, considering your record for speaking out boldly in defence of your principles. [Some may think you were defending Plutarch, but I know better. :) And I hold you in higher esteem for that, themilum, than if you had been defending me and not your principles.]
re "To what degree can words be definite in meaning across cultural and individual interpretations?"
So, let me give it a try, at the risk of being tautologous. Or worse. :)
Lawmakers can try to nail down the precise meaning of words, of course. The problem is they can't foresee every contingency. That's why tax attorneys and accountants get paid so much to find loop-holes in taxation laws. And that's why taxation laws are so hopelessly dense and complicated to the ordinary, educated reader. [Nothing new in this observation, I agree.]
But no lawmaker has tried to nail down, in precise statutory terms, what a general term like "cruel and unusual punishment" means. Judges have taken a whack at it, and they continue to take a whack at it, but the words are wide open to subjective, individual interpretation.
And such interepretations vary from individual to individual, even amongst high-minded individuals, and, of course, they vary from culture to culture [say from the 'blue' culture to the 'red' culture] within the same country.
So that's why I said "the era of one's judgment" is a relevant consideration here, and why I suggested that Anu's AWAD on "presentism" could also be relevant.
I don't think that adds much to the discussion, themilum. But it adds something to the completeness of the high regard I have for you. I hope. :)
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
854
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
