Quote Originally Posted by jkdesq
I fail to see it. Somehow if I change the meaning of word "monkey" to include "humans", I have proved evolution: is that the danger? A very strange slippery slope.

I don't think the Scopes Monkey Trial was an issue due to the mutibility of language, but rather of over-zealousness. A crime of which I think both you and I (and likely one other individual) might be guilty. In Scopes, it was religion. Here, I don't know from where the zealousness comes.

Professional jargon. In law we have "terms of art" that are governed by judicial decisions--but even then evolve from decision to decision. Accountants, Engineers I imagine all have their jargon which evolves. I would put it to you that these, as with common English, evolve within cultures. However, they evolve within smaller cultures delineated by professions.

Scientific jargon. I would suggest evolves in the same way as professional jargon. Scientific nomenclature: I understand there are system for it. I defy you to point to the system of development for English words that are allowed in Scrabble!

Language is NOT scientific and is NOT logical.
I only used those two events to show what happens when objectivity fails and an agenda enters in to science. Not that they actually have anything to do with language.

Don't reach for what isn't there. :grin: