-
28th September 05, 08:16 PM
#91
I thought I was pretty clear. I'll give someone else a shot at it. It could be though that no amount of explaining will suffice.
-
-
29th September 05, 06:12 AM
#92
![Quote](http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by KiltedCodeWarrior
Rigged,
I find that I have no idea what your comment on my post meant. Could you clarify your comment?
Thanks!
RJI
And I thought it was just me ! (thinking US and UK separated by a common language) No sorry, I got lost in that one as well and just glazed over as I read it. Glad I was not the only one.
-
-
29th September 05, 06:54 AM
#93
I think that I have it! A godd night's sleep helps. I think that Rigged's statement:
As for the previous post, web browser hits don't necessarily translate to sales and sales don't necessarily translate to daily use.
I think he was just pointing out that advertising the Utilikilt as a mans' skirt might increase the number of people browsing the UK site, and might improve the hits when somebody Googled for "men's skirts", but that would not necessarily equate to more people buying them, and even if they did, they still might relegate them to special occasions, so there might not be any perceptible increase in the number of people wearing kilts. I believe that his comments after that point were related to his take on the whole kilt, skirt, MUG thread.
Rigged, is that on track?
RJI
The kilt concealed a blaster strapped to his thigh. Lazarus Long
-
-
29th September 05, 08:28 AM
#94
![Quote](http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Freedomlover
These are cultural usage problems, not definition problems.
Language comes from the culture. You cannot separate English from the cultures that speak it. This is the frustrating thing about dealing with your "remonstrations", it goes in one of your ears and out the other and you never address the counterpoints. This takes us back to the point that English has no insitution or group of officials to PRESCRIBE word definitions. We have no Immortals. English dictionary publishers try to capture and DESCRIBE the common usage of the words, ie. the linguistical culture. As I have said before the only important definitions of English words are the meanings that English speakers think those words have.
"Hundreds of [dictionaries]"? I doubt there are hundreds of dictionaries. Maybe we could take a straw pole of dictionaries. Other than OED and Websters (well discussed heretofore), I can think of Funk & Wagnalls (no online service) and Collins (online service temporarily shut down). Can anyone else think of any English dictionaries? Can anyone with any of these additional dictionaries provide us with the definitions of "kilt" and "skirt"?
"Remonstrate with"? I don't think one remonstrates "with" another person. I would suggest the proper preposition would be "at". You are "remonstrating at me".
Anticipating that you will say etymology, and not culture, is the driving force of word definitions, I'll leave you with three thoughts: i) Etymology is the study of how words have been used by past cultures. Why is usage by past cultures any more important than present cultures? ii) Someone who values etymology should appreciate that there is no finer authority for the etymology of English words than the Oxford English Dictionary (not the small Concise version or the bargain basement Compact version) but the full multiple volume set. I am surprized that you, claiming to be a student of etymology would make any desparaging remarks on this great English institution. If you truely felt etymology was so important, you would pay the online fee for the real OED (http://www.oed.com/) or go to your library and look up "kilt" and "skirt". iii) Etymology is not Entomology; language is not science. Language does not need to follow classifications or logic. It simple is what it is. My OED and common sense tell me that most English speakers think a skirt is strictly women's clothing and that cows are strictly females of several species (none of the 3 definitions of "cow" in my Concise OED include male cattle and, if you looked at a bunch of steers and called then "cows", you would be laughed at and corrected--Ranchers aren't the most polite folk). I acknowledge there are bases for contrary opinions and can respect them, but will not adopt them and would encourage others not to adopt them either.
So two questions for you: i) if not from the culture, where do you think the definitions of English words come from? ii) I'll ask a THIRD TIME, why is it so important to you that kilts be viewed as a type of skirt? Give a responsive answer, please. I've given my answer before. I suspect you don't really read my postings.
Last edited by jkdesq; 29th September 05 at 08:58 AM.
-
-
29th September 05, 08:47 AM
#95
![Quote](http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by jkdesq
Language comes from the culture. You cannot separate English from the cultures that speak it. This is the frustrating thing about dealing with your "remonstrations", it goes in one of your ears and out the other and you never address the counterpoints. This takes us back to the point that English has no insitution or group of officials to PRESCRIBE word definitions. We have no Immortals. English dictionary publishers try to capture and DESCRIBE the common usage of the words, ie. the linguistical culture. As I have said before the only important definitions of English words are the meanings that English speakers think those words have.
Anticipating that you will say etymology, and not culture, is the driving force of word definitions, I'll leave you with three thoughts: i) Etymology is the study of how words have been used by past cultures. Why is usage by past cultures any more important than present cultures? ii) Someone who values etymology should appreciate that there is no finer authority for the etymology of English words than the Oxford English Dictionary (not the small Concise version or the bargain basement Compact version) but the full multiple volume set. I am surprized that you, claiming to be a student of etymology would make any desparaging remarks on this great English institution. If you truely felt etymology was so important, you would pay the online fee for the real OED ( http://www.oed.com/) or go to your library and look up "kilt" and "skirt". iii) Etymology is not Entomology; language is not science. Language does not need to follow classifications or logic. It simple is what it is. My OED and common sense tell me that most English speakers think a skirt is strictly women's clothing and that cows are strictly females of several species (none of the 3 definitions of "cow" in my Concise OED include male cattle and, if you looked at a bunch of steers and called then "cows", you would be laughed at and corrected--Ranchers aren't the most polite folk). I acknowledge there are bases for contrary opinions and can respect them, but will not adopt them and would encourage others not to adopt them either.
So two questions for you: i) if not from the culture, where do you think the definitions of English words come from? ii) I'll ask a THIRD TIME, why is it so important to you that kilts be viewed as a type of skirt? Give a responsive answer, please. I've given my answer before. I suspect you don't really read my postings.
I respectfully disagree. Language IS science. And accurate etymology for classification and description is vital. Otherwise, science would fail. There would be no accurate scientific descriptions with out percise well established language, of whatever kind. Language is the foundation on which scientific learning and propagation is built on.
And it must remain objective rather than become subject to an agenda, or else science suffers. One only need to look at the Scopes Monkey Trial or the current debate over evolution vs intelligent design to see what happens when agendas enter in to science.
My two yen.
-
-
29th September 05, 08:50 AM
#96
Flashback
Cool thread, reminds me of sitting around drinking beer and discussing religion in college.
Bottom line seems to be some need to "justify" wearing kilts.
I just love kilts. I love how they look on my most obese body. I love how they feel when I walk. I love the pride they bring me. I love the comfort to help me do my job better. I love the attention from the ladies. I even enjoy the stumbling questions people ask me.
I do not care what word is used to describe them in any language.
You could call them tampons instead of kilts and I'd still wear them with pride.
What I wonder is what is this seemingly inner need to have the garment officially described. It just is. Enjoy it.
We've already spit in the face of "the rules" by sallying forth kilted, why do we need to have rules about how we break the rules?
Let it go.
Somewhere there's a Buddhist who can explain all this....
Ron
Ol' Macdonald himself, a proud son of Skye and Cape Breton Island
Lifetime Member STA. Two time winner of Utilikiltarian of the Month.
"I'll have a kilt please, a nice hand sewn tartan, 16 ounce Strome. Oh, and a sporran on the side, with a strap please."
-
-
29th September 05, 08:52 AM
#97
![Quote](http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Riverkilt
Cool thread, reminds me of sitting around drinking beer and discussing religion in college.
Bottom line seems to be some need to "justify" wearing kilts.
I just love kilts. I love how they look on my most obese body. I love how they feel when I walk. I love the pride they bring me. I love the comfort to help me do my job better. I love the attention from the ladies. I even enjoy the stumbling questions people ask me.
I do not care what word is used to describe them in any language.
You could call them tampons instead of kilts and I'd still wear them with pride.
What I wonder is what is this seemingly inner need to have the garment officially described. It just is. Enjoy it.
We've already spit in the face of "the rules" by sallying forth kilted, why do we need to have rules about how we break the rules?
Let it go.
Somewhere there's a Buddhist who can explain all this....
Ron
Ron. What is the sound of one pleat flapping?
Zen thought of the day.
-
-
29th September 05, 08:57 AM
#98
Ahhh Grasshopper,
It is the wind beneath your pleats that brings enlightenment....
Next lesson:
If there is no one around to mock a man in a kilt is he still kilted?
Ron
Ol' Macdonald himself, a proud son of Skye and Cape Breton Island
Lifetime Member STA. Two time winner of Utilikiltarian of the Month.
"I'll have a kilt please, a nice hand sewn tartan, 16 ounce Strome. Oh, and a sporran on the side, with a strap please."
-
-
29th September 05, 09:00 AM
#99
![Quote](http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Riverkilt
Ahhh Grasshopper,
It is the wind beneath your pleats that brings enlightenment....
Next lesson:
If there is no one around to mock a man in a kilt is he still kilted?
Ron
So that man by himself, with no one, and no woman to see him, if he makes a mistake, is he still wrong?
-
-
29th September 05, 09:10 AM
#100
Jargon and scientific nomenclature is NOT everyday English
![Quote](http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png) Originally Posted by Dreadbelly
I respectfully disagree. Language IS science. And accurate etymology for classification and description is vital. Otherwise, science would fail. There would be no accurate scientific descriptions with out percise well established language, of whatever kind. Language is the foundation on which scientific learning and propagation is built on.
And it must remain objective rather than become subject to an agenda, or else science suffers. One only need to look at the Scopes Monkey Trial or the current debate over evolution vs intelligent design to see what happens when agendas enter in to science.
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.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks