Re: No flightless Insecta?

On Jun 11, 11:53 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
r norman wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:12:39 -0000, UC
<uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 11, 10:52 am, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:07:05 -0000, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jun 10, 3:23 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:54:39 -0700, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Jun 9, 7:44 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Mark Isaak wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:47:28 -0700, UC wrote:

This is simply false. the word 'insect' does not mean the same thing
as 'Insecta'.

Sometimes it does. You yourself said so.

To be precise, I don't think he actually said so. What he did was
triumphantly post a dictionary definition that said so. And as we know
he is allowed to ignore any dictionary definition he doesn't like, in
favor of those he does like.

The dictionary records usage. 'Insect' is a vernacular term that
refers to spiders, millipedes, etc., as well as 'Insecta'.

Insects have six legs.

No, that's false. the word 'insect' is used by English speakers to
refer to various terrestrial invertebrates.

Are you saying that you don't agree with that
definition?

I'm saying that the definition you have given is in fact wrong; it is
not a matter for me to agree or disagree:

"Main Entry:1insect
Pronunciation:*in*sekt
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
Etymology:Latin insectum, from neuter of insectus, past participle of
insecare to cut into, from in- 2in- + secare to cut; translation of
Greek entomon * more at SAW, ENTOMOLOGY

1 a : any of numerous small invertebrate animals that are more or less
obviously segmented and that include members of the class Insecta and
others (as spiders, mites, ticks, centipedes, sowbugs) having
superficial resemblance to members of Insecta not used technically
b [New Latin Insecta] : a member of the class Insecta (as an ant, bee,
fly)
2 now chiefly substandard : any of various small animals (as an
earthworm, coral polyp, turtle)
3 : a small, trivial, or contemptible person"

That is to say, there are several different meanings that have to be
interpreted in context. There may be some confusion as to which
meaning is intended, but that is the way language works.

But the biologists are saying that THEIR meanings alone are right.
This is an incorrect position. That's my primary point. They have no
basis for saying that. They have no authority to do so.

I agree with you on this. Some here are almost as bull-headed as you
on the subject.

Note that this is *not* what UC is saying. He's saying that his meanings
alone are right.

My 'meanings' are simply pointing out that the general dictionaries
have collected examples of usage for hundreds of years, and that those
examples show usages that conflict with what some people want them to
be.

He's not even clear on what his primary point is.

I certainly am clear.

All of which is the main point you don't seem to comprehend. There
are meanings of the word "ape" and "dinosaur" and "wolf" that you
absolutely deny, just as you deny that one meaning of the word
"insect" is to restrict it to members of the Insecta.

The word 'ape' is an old vernacular English word with a very well-
established meaning that excludes human beings.

You are correct also about this point.

Sort of. In fact it has *two* meanings that exclude human beings, one of
them old and the other introduced, apparently, in the 19th Century, by
scientists attempting to impose their taxonomic conventions on the
language. In this they have largely succeeded, since very few people
would consider, say, a spider monkey or macaque to be an ape. One of
UC's many unintentional ironies is his spirited defense of one
scientist-imposed meaning against another.

The term means both 'monkey' and later 'large anthropid simians'. The
former use has apparently declined but still exists.



Just as the word 'insect' is
an old vernacular English word with a very well-established meaning
that includes slugs and snails and worms and all sorts of things. But
both words have acquired newer meanings which differ from the older
one. It might cause confusion having two meanings for one word, but
that is the way the world works.

Are we past the "humans are mammals" problem because the dictionaries
define mammal as "member of ..."?

Huh?

You don't remember arguing that "humans are mammals" is improper
language usage because "mammal" denotes a group or class? You are
worse than I suspected.

UC is not only worse than you suspected, he's worse than you *can* suspect.

How utterly unkind of you.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No flightless Insecta?
    ... triumphantly post a dictionary definition that said so. ... superficial resemblance to members of Insecta not used technically ... meaning is intended, but that is the way language works. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: No flightless Insecta?
    ... triumphantly post a dictionary definition that said so. ... superficial resemblance to members of Insecta not used technically ... meaning is intended, but that is the way language works. ... related primate species including humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No flightless Insecta?
    ... triumphantly post a dictionary definition that said so. ... superficial resemblance to members of Insecta not used technically ... meaning is intended, but that is the way language works. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No flightless Insecta?
    ... branch of the cockroaches. ... He thinks that its only meaning is ... legs" but now as "Any member of the class Insecta". ... superficial resemblance to members of Insecta not used technically ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No flightless Insecta?
    ... triumphantly post a dictionary definition that said so. ... superficial resemblance to members of Insecta not used technically ... meaning is intended, but that is the way language works. ... In modern English the term "ape" refers to a collection of closely ...
    (talk.origins)