Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:08:34 -0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Jun 10, 9:15 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:41:50 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>:



On Jun 9, 10:30 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:35:22 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>:

On Jun 8, 10:03 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
UC wrote, On 2007/06/08 16:12:

On Jun 8, 3:56 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The word "Ape" covers the family Hylobatidae consists of four genera
and twelve species of gibbons. These are collectively known as the
"lesser apes". It also covers the family Hominidae consisting of
orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees AND humans, together collectively
known as the "great apes".
Nope. It does not. The meaning of the word 'ape' is as follows:
"Main Entry:1ape

[...definition snipped...]

Tell, me, why do you insist upon the utter and no exceptions correctness
of this particular dictionary definition, yet reject the dictionary
definition or archaeopteryx which call it a bird? Your picking seems
rather cherryish, to me.

Also, as a self-proclaimed linguist, I am utterly amazed at your
insistence that meanings of words cannot change and those meanings can
only be defined by broad, vernacular usages. How did you think that
languages changed - only by the alteration of phonemes such that
"*theudiskaz" became "Deutsch" or "*rtko-" became "ursus" or "arctos",
with no change in meaning?

Do you believe that "cool", in it's colloquial usage of great, fine,
excellent, was decided upon one day 60-70 years ago by all users of the
English language here in North America and the next day they all started
to use it in a decidedly non-temperature related meaning? Or, had you
been around back in the 1920s and '30s, would you have been castigating
that very small community jazz musicians for the improper use of a word
describing temperature?

Or back in the ere of Old English when "w f" meant "woman", would you
have impugned those who early adopters in the change into Middle English
"wife" meaning "female spouse", saying that it was wrong for them to do so?

I fail to see how you fail to understand that your god of common usage
is not the steady rock but a quicksand of permutation and constant
change, one in which small groups create specialized usages for their
own, internal needs, some of which then come to affect the entire
language as a whole. The meaning of "Ape" through the ages is a perfect
example of this type of change.

Usage changes, so suck it up buttercup. The size of your go doesn't make
you the ultimate authority on what other people or groups may or may not
do with a language.

But the simple fact is that there has been no such change. What you
WANT it to mean is not what it DOES mean, and what it DOES mean is
recorded in several large dictionaries of merit. So, you're simply
barking up the wrong tree here.

Those same dictionaries record that Archie is a bird.

No they do not. 'Archaeopteryx' is not 'defined'.

Learn to read; I didn't say "define", I said "record", using
your exact terminology.

It is the name of a
species. Any information about its classification is encyclopaedic
information, not lexical. I have said this repeatedly.

You've said a lot of things repeatedly, most of them
incorrect. If repetition conferred accuracy the Creationists
would be ahead on points. But they're not, and neither are
you.

Not responsive.

Of course it was, but I'll simplify it for you since you
seem to have a comprehension problem:

You are incorrect. Dictionaries list (or "record" if you
prefer) the correct spelling, pronunciation, definition(s),
usage and (usually) etymology of words; those, and not
encyclopedic discussion, are their function. All the
dictionaries *you* said to read for the *definition* of
archaeopteryx say it's a bird. Upon learning this, you
reversed yourself and claimed that dictionaries do *not*
define or record usage of words. In other words, you only
recognize those authorities which agree with you. Since in
this case there are none, you've found it a bit of a
challenge and decided to use the "omniscience" gambit:
you're right and everyone else is wrong, or, as I prefer,
the doting mother "Look! Everyone's out of step but Johnny!"
reaction, only applied to yourself. In this, as in so many
things, you are incorrect. And repetition of incorrect
statements does not confer accuracy.

Responsive enough for you?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.