Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On Jun 8, 2:58 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:45:25 +0000, UC wrote:
On Jun 8, 12:58 pm, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Men ARE apes. The equivalent to saying "dogs are wolves" would be to
say that men are chimpanzees, which they aren't. There is a larger
grouping that includes men and the OTHER apes. It has a scientific
name and you will accept it under that name but you won't accept it
under ape.

That's correct, because the MEANING of the word 'ape' prohibits it,
and you cannot change the meaning of the word 'ape' arbitrarily to
override it.

First, the meaning of a word never, EVER, prohibits another meaning of
the same word.

In an argument, using a word in two different senses is called
equivocation.

In the case of 'ape', the basic meaning refers to animals, not human
beings. It means essentially 'large primates other than men'. If you
use it to mean 'large primates including men', those senses are not
just different, they are contradictory. I'm not saying that you can't
use words that have multiple meanings; but you can't uuse a word that
explicity means 'except men' and say that it includes men. That won't
fly.

Second, anyone can change the meaning of any word as arbitrarily as they
want. And they do. That's how language changes.

Oh you can, but you musn't.

Third, the meaning of "ape" which includes humans is not arbitrary. It
is the meaning which best accords with reality.

There is no 'reality'. The word 'ape' means what it means as it refers
to a concept. The concept is 'large primates not including men'. The
name for the concept 'large primates not including men' is 'ape'. You
musn't change the word 'ape' to mean 'large primates including men'
because it means 'large primates not including men', and that is a
contradiction.

You keep using the word "meaning" in the singular. Almost every time you
do, you are wrong. The vast majority of words used in English have more
than one meaning.

I am well aware of that.

To deny it, or to insist that multiple meanings of
words is wrong, is to deny most of linguistics.

I wrote two papers about it.

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/VERSCH.html

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/adv.html



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... under ape. ... It means essentially 'large primates other than men'. ... different, they are contradictory. ... second meaning of a word which is contrary to the first (and a second ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... under ape. ... It means essentially 'large primates other than men'. ... different, they are contradictory. ... second meaning of a word which is contrary to the first (and a second ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... the dictionary under 'ape', ... I'm saying they are not the final word, and that language evolves in a fashion ... but simply don't like the idea that they are animals. ... The meaning of ape has ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... under ape. ... and you cannot change the meaning of the word 'ape' arbitrarily to ... There is no 'reality'. ... The concept is 'large primates not including men'. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... under ape. ... It means essentially 'large primates other than men'. ... different, they are contradictory. ... second meaning of a word which is contrary to the first (and a second ...
    (talk.origins)