Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

UC wrote:

On Jun 14, 12:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

UC wrote:

On Jun 14, 11:47 am, amor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Morgan) wrote:

In article <uranium-1181833414.594210.172...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 14, 10:53 am, amor...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Morgan) wrote:

In article <uranium-1181827072.983875.113...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:09 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:05:28 -0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>:

<snip>

There is a difference in saying that because the majority believes a
thing to be true that it is true (argumentum ad populum), and saying
that meaning is determined by popular usage.

OK, provide a clear explanation of the difference, as
applied to this discussion.

Argumentum ad populum is the fallacy that rests on the belief that if
the majority believes a thing to be true (a matter of fact) then it IS
true. If the majority believe that the moon is made of green cheese,
however, that does not mean it is made of green cheese.

The case with the meaning of words is altogether different. If 99.9%
of the users of the word 'ape' use it to mean non-human beings, that's
what the word means, and anyone who says different is wrong.

Not entirely true - there is context. There are more people in the
world who believe that boo means "not" than think of it as a way to
scare children. That's because there are more Chinese speakers (bu)
than English speakers (boo!). Stupid example, but language exists in
a domain. I, personally, have no problem saying that "ape", in the
vernacular, means non-human primates. The question is why you have
a problem understanding that other disciplines (languages) have a
different meaning?

It's a vernacular term. Vernacular usage governs it.

How can I tell if a term is vernacular? Is "animal" vernacular?

Yes. 'Naimalia' is Linnaean

That's odd. The dictionary you quoted uses a first definition for
"animal" that's equivalent to "Animalia" (note spelling) and implicitly
includes humans. Are we supposed to ignore that in favor of the second
definition? Is the first definition wrong?

Yes, some people use 'animal' as exactly equivalent to 'Animalia'.
What's the problem?
I have no objection.

Yes you do. In fact you have stated that it's wrong to say "humans are
animals". You have done this frequently, and that's what we were arguing
about. Must I find examples?

Many
people think that humans are not animals.

The word 'animal' is usually used to refer to non-human mobile life
forms that do not rely on photosynthesis in their metabolism..

It has several meanings. That's an approximation of one of them.

the commonest one, actually.

It resembles the commonest one, certainly. So?

Why are
you allowed to reject the other meanings, despite their presence in your
preferred dictionaries?

I don't.

Except when you do, which is frequently. But since you now agree that
humans are animals (here I'm using that definition 1, which is perfectly
appropriate according to you), that particular argument is over.

Is "organic" vernacular?

Yes.

Should organic chemists find some other name to call themselves by?

No. Out of context, that's my response.

Ah, so context does matter. Maybe we don't have to abandon all those
other words we use in multiple ways, including the ones that have
biological meanings and less formal ones too.

What about "mammal"?

Yes.

But elsewhere you have claimed that "mammal" is a word that should never
be used.

I do think it should be avoided.

Your statements were a bit stronger than that. So "mammal" is a
vernacular term that should be avoided. In this case, common usage is
wrong. What then does "wrong" mean, since usage has supposedly been your
guide in all similar matters?

You have said that there are no "mammals". How can it be a
vernacular term when it's just derived from the scientific term
"Mammalia"? Your rules are opaque. I suppose we could just ask you
whenever we want to know the correct usage in every particular
situation, but that would be inconvenient.

I'll get the Batphone...

So you agree that our opinion on "mammal" is incoherent and
self-contradictory, and the only way to determine what you think is
correct usage would be to ask you about each individual case.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gender and sex
    ... As far as 'true meanings' go, that isn't really its purpose; ... current state of the language. ... on gender makes no reference to anything but grammatical gender. ... usage, and protect them from the whim of the hoi polloi. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gender and sex
    ... authority for English which is empowered to dictate what usage ... 'sex' tends to refer to biological ... can have multiple meanings, and words will acquire new meanings ... particular usage dates back to at least the Middle English period (back ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... The meanings of words is established by usage. ... So...what's the word for all the small extinct animals, ... 'birds' are 'dinosaurs'. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gender and sex
    ... As far as 'true meanings' go, that isn't really its purpose; ... current state of the language. ... on gender makes no reference to anything but grammatical gender. ... usage, and protect them from the whim of the hoi polloi. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... are closely related to the apes has no effect whatsoever on the ... UC is simply Humpty Dumpty incarnate. ... If the dictionary lists multiple meanings, ... If common usage includes a meaning you don't like, ...
    (talk.origins)