Re: Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:41:44 -0700, UC <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Jun 9, 12:43 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:59:06 +0000, UC wrote:
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.

Equivocation is when the same person uses the word in two different
senses in the same argument. That is irrelevant here.

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;

No, you are saying words cannot have multiple meanings at all.

I have made no such absurd claim.

Don't you read your own posts?

On the contraty, I have published
two papers on the topic.

Any
second meaning of a word which is contrary to the first (and a second
meaning is always contrary, or it would be the same as the first meaning)
is diallowed.

Not at all. I have never said that. Many meanings are simply
extensions of a given primary meaning. The sense is easily determined
from the context. 'Cleave to' means the opposite of 'cleave 'from',
but there is no problem because the words are clearly disambiguated by
the preposition. When you say "men are apes", however, you have the
problem that 'ape' means "animals that are not men'.

Read the rest of your own sentence:

but you can't use a word that explicity means 'except men' and say
that it includes men. That won't fly.

That's correct.

But, as so many people have told you, the word ape includes man.

Like 'men'? You can't use a word that explicity means 'except women' and
say that it includes all humans. That won't fly. Oh, wait; it flies all
the time. In fact, you just flew it.

teh word 'men' implies "men and women". Don't be stupid.

No. men is the multiple of man.

Man includes women as well, unless context refers to a single man.

In the case of "ape," the basic meaning refers to animals including human
beings.

It does not.

Yes it does.

It means essentially "large primates."

No, it does not.

Yes it does.

If you use it to mean
"large primates excluding humans," those senses are not just different,
they are contradictory. And both definitions are correct. At the same
time. Deal with it.

No, They are not both correct.

Man is an ape, a primate, a mammal and an animal.

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.

"The only good language is a dead language."

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'.

You are ignoring reality (as you imply a couple sentences back). The
word ape also refers to the concept of "large primates including man."
That is a fact. Deal with it.

No, it does not. Deal with it.

You are either:-

a) VERY stupid.
b) VERY ignorant.
c) VERY dishonest.
d) All three.

I vote for (d).

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.

You just hate that it happens and want it to force it go away.
Tough. Deal with it.

I am dealing with morons here.

Stupid, ignorant, dishonest TROLL.

--
Bob.

.

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: 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: 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
    ... 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: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... people, excepting the idiots, do not ignore lab results. ... that the defining features of apes also include humans, ... anaylsis) can change the meaning of the term 'ape'. ...
    (talk.origins)