[genewitch]

I'm one of those people who says, unironically, "words have meanings." I readily argue with people who present "language is living and evolves" - sure, but in order to communicate we have to agree on a decent subset of overall definitions.

I enjoy etymology, maybe too much. It's like magic, finding out what a barrow was, or how filibuster has a direct lineage to pirates (freebooters... In Dutch.)

I can't afford, really, the nicer old English, scandi, frisan, Norse, etc. etymology dictionaries. I have incomplete scans that were printed and bound of some of them. I still have 6 etymology dictionaries, so I can be about as quick getting a dictionary as getting on the computer and going to !eo.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> in order to communicate we have to agree on a decent subset of overall definitions.

sociologically speaking, however, it is precisely that agreement that is what evolves alongside changes in spelling, pronounciation (and occasionally "new" words).

[protocolture]

>I'm one of those people who says, unironically, "words have meanings." I readily argue with people who present "language is living and evolves" - sure, but in order to communicate we have to agree on a decent subset of overall definitions.

A few things.

>we have to agree on a decent subset of overall definitions.

Yes but we should fairly obviously understand that a word can have multiple, often competing meanings, and make an effort to learn the new ones as they become available.

As language shifts, and its shifted rapidly in my own lifetime, you can either make an effort to keep up, or be a sourpuss and refuse to understand changes in language.

It seems to me there's usually a political dimension to people who refuse to understand what people mean, because its easier to denigrate people if they cling to definitions that aren't intended by their political opponents use of a word.

I see this shit constantly mind. Gender. Liberty. Capitalism. Communism. People get stuck fighting useless battles over the right to define a word instead of just learning and embracing their opponents intention.

[genewitch]

> It seems to me there's usually a political dimension to people who refuse to understand what people mean, because its easier to denigrate people if they cling to definitions that aren't intended by their political opponents use of a word.

and to an extent, the rest of your comment - the solution, according to my PhD friend, is to establish the framing of the argument before you actually have the argument. It's more fun to not establish framing, but it's more effective to establish framing, first. I wonder if i have the publication (thesis?) he made on my NAS.

[protocolture]

Yeah absolutely. I tend to just use definitions when I want someone to get my meaning rather than hotly contested words.