Depends on what you mean by ‘usage’. I don’t agree with your definition of ‘usage’. See previous post. ‘Usage’ does not mean ‘I and some of my friends don’t like something so we’ll define it out of existence’. I am not that stupid to fall for this tactic. That’s begging the question.
Tsk, tsk. Someone didn’t read Frindle when they were young. I would advise you to spend the week studying its major themes before returning to this thread.
My definition of “usage”? I haven’t given you any definition of “usage”. I’m just trying to discover if you’re a descriptivist or a prescriptivist.
It’s pretty clear he’s a melchiortivist.
The usage of ‘usage’ has changed over time, so discussions of word usage must first deal with the word ‘usage’.
Neither. I do not accept that you can cite as the basis for an argument the changing of meaning of a word whose usage you have yourself changed. That’s called equivocation.
What determines the meaning of a word?
I do not accept that you can cite as the basis for an argument the changing of meaning of a word whose usage you have yourself changed. That’s called equivocation.
You cannot appeal to ‘changes in meaning’ when this so-called ‘change in meaning’ is merely nothing but your *refusal *to use the word in the accepted way.
Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1863. We didn’t change the meaning of the word ‘slave’, did we?
Why do you get to redefine marriage? Historically, plural marriage has been the norm.
Or what?
Yes, it has. But it wasn’t a bunch of men alone!
I’m just discussing general principles. What determines the meaning of a word?
So? The point is that it has already been redefined. In fact, marriage as an institution has evolved to reflect the needs and mores of society throughout history. In a society (like today’s) that is no longer bound by natural reproductive inheritance, and in which marriage is no longer tied to reproduction, there’s no reason to retain the old definition.
Certainly someone’s refusing to use the word in the accepted way here, but it isn’t Hamster King.
Of course there is.
Psst, this is the part where you expound upon the reasoning that leads you to conclude so.
Spoiler alert: no, it isn’t.
I agree that the cost of reprinting all those dictionaries is prohibitive, but we needed to update them to include *twerk *and *ratchet *anyway.
How about ‘Usage’ meaning ‘the majority of Americans believe and use the word “marriage” to describe unions that can include same-sex unions’? B
Because that’s a factual statement about how Americans see and use that word.
Melchior seems to believe that the word has been changed by a small group of individuals. The facts say otherwise, but I don’t know how to demonstrate that to someone who isn’t listening.
To sum up the thread:
Melchior is factually incorrect, i.e. wrong.
Melchior is not going to change his mind.
Melchior is not going to change anyone else’s mind.
Talking to Melchior is pointless.