Re: Unique is, well, unique ...

From Richard Jarvis' message, I presume that he believes it either
impossible, or sinful, for people to mean by some word anything but
what other people had meant by that word on the day that they created
it.

If so, then the word "computer" cannot legitimately refer to any
machine, because (as the Oxford English Dictionary will verify) until
1897 the word had referred solely to a person who computes.

Similarly, the word "nice" cannot (by Richard's faith in etymology)
rmean any such thing as "pleasant," because (verifies the OED)
originally (and for most of that word's existence) the word "nice"
etymologically and originally meant the same thing as the word
"foolish" ("nice" derives from Latin NESCIUS — and retained that
meaning for most of its history).

I doubt that Richard calls the large electronic box on his desk
anything but a computer.
   I doubt, too, that his faith in etymology as the meaning-giver has
left him forbidding (to others or to himself) any meaning of "nice"
other than its original, etymologically verified, sense of "foolish."
(Faith in etymology would also leave us having to use "silly" only as
a synonym for "joyful" and/or "blessed" — yet I doubt that Richard
would recommend calling one's best friend "silly" and defending this
on etymological grounds: "If you hadn't fallen prey to the modern
corruption of the meaning of the word 'silly,' you'd have known that I
was offering you a compliment!" Well, how nice ... )

If Richard rejects etymological determination of meaning for "nice"
and "dunce," while requiring it for "unique," then I presume Richard
has fixed some criterion by which he decides (in every case) whether
etymology shall, or shall not, control what a person means by a word.

I suspect that Richard objects to a departure from etymology only when
it happens to occur during his lifetime. To the myriad changes which
happened before his birth (such as the changes in what we mean by
"nice" and "dunce" and "silly" and "computer"), he has no objection.
To the equally numerous changes which will almost certainly occur
after his death, he does not and cannot object, for they have not yet
happened.
     In my opinion, therefore Richard has taken the rather silly
position (neither joyful nor blessed!) of allowing his own lifespan to
determine what the English language does, and does not, contain. If
people re-define a word during Richard's life, this makes the
re-definition wrong, and Richard will complain. At any other time in
the history of the language, if people re-define a word then Richard
will not complain, no matter how far the new definition removes a word
from its etymology.

But I could well have guessed wrong. Richard, if you use (for
determining the legitimacy of a linguistic change) some criterion
other than whether or not that change occurred during the lifetime of
Richard Jarvis, please let me know.



 Yours for better letters, Kate Gladstone -
handwritingrepair@xxxxxxxxx - telephone 518/482-6763
 Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest
 http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair
 325 South Manning Boulevard
 Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA
       Order books through my site!
 (Amazon.com link gets me 5% - 15% commission)
       And sign the "Politician Legibility Act" Petition:
http://www.iPetitions.com/petition/PoliticianLegibility
========================================================To Unsubscribe: Send email to 
fptalk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field. The email 
that you then receive MUST be replied to per instructions to complete the process.

Other related posts: