Re: Common ancestor between man and ape


On 2-Jun-2007, UC <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 1, 8:38 pm, "Martin Hutton"
<mdhutton1949REM...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1-Jun-2007, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 1, 5:13 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:26:57 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx>:

On 31 May 2007 11:33:43 -0700, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

All I'm claiming is that 'ape' is used by
most English speakers to mean something much less precise than the
'scientific' usage (that is, they would include baboons and other
lesser apes and 'monkeys'), and that the overwhelmingly vast
majority
of people who use the word or read the word do not understand it
to
refer to human beings. That's all I'm claiming.

Just goes to show how wrong you can be.

Actually I believe he's correct in this; most people *don't*
think of humans when the word "apes" is used, and most
people would tend to group monkeys in with apes. Correct,
but irrelevant to his initial claim that including humans in
the "ape" category is *wrong*; he equates correct usage with
common usage, and states that common usage *defines* correct
usage. So his concluding sentence is incorrect; that's *not*
all he's claiming, or all he has claimed.

Can the queen be a king? No, by definition, analytically, a female
cannot be 'king'; for females, we use the word 'queen'.

Until and unless the meaning of the word 'king' changes (and it cannot
be changed by fiat), a queen cannot be a king.

IIRC Some female rulers (Egypt?) have been declared "King" and
titular male because of some asinine religious ruling. And at
least one king has been called queen (James II), oh, and I
believe Lizzy was "King Elizabeth II" during a visit to
Saudi Arabia. English sure is flexible.

However, Kings and Queens (and Shahs, Tsars &c) are monarchs,
are Heads of State, &c.

For the same reason (the meanings of the word 'man' and the word
'ape') 'men' are not 'apes'.

Just as men are apes, are simians, are primates, &c.

Inclusive grouping old boy, inclusive grouping.

Nope.

Yep. (and so on, to infinity and beyond).

Words change meaning and accrete new ones... ?ape? is
in that process. Live with it.

--
Martin Hutton

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... most English speakers to mean something much less precise than the ... lesser apes and 'monkeys'), and that the overwhelmingly vast majority ... common usage, and states that common usage *defines* correct ... cannot be 'king'; for females, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... most English speakers to mean something much less precise than the ... lesser apes and 'monkeys'), and that the overwhelmingly vast majority ... common usage, and states that common usage *defines* correct ... cannot be 'king'; for females, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... lesser apes and 'monkeys'), and that the overwhelmingly vast majority ... think of humans when the word "apes" is used, ... common usage, and states that common usage *defines* correct ... cannot be 'king'; for females, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... lesser apes and 'monkeys'), and that the overwhelmingly vast majority ... think of humans when the word "apes" is used, ... cannot be 'king'; for females, ... queens are queens - both are monarchs. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... enriched this group when s/he wrote: ... lesser apes and 'monkeys'), and that the overwhelmingly vast majority ... think of humans when the word "apes" is used, ... common usage, and states that common usage *defines* correct ...
    (talk.origins)