Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On Jun 21, 3:31 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:26 am, Will in New Haven



<bill.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:11 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 21, 10:01 am, Will in New Haven

<bill.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 9:39 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 20, 2:17 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

UC wrote, On 2007/06/19 12:20:

On Jun 19, 12:07 pm, Will in New Haven
Do we still have to call whales fish?
Non sequitur....

Oh, calling whales "fish" is definitely _not_ non sequitur. It is
directly relevant to you refusing to allow (is if it were up to you!)
that "ape" means all members of Hominoidea, including humans.

I'm not refusing to allow it. 'Ape' doesn't refer to humans and never
has.

This is being changed in homes and in schools all across the country.

You cannot arbitrarily decide that words mean something that they
don't mean. Education involves learning new combinations of words, not
distortion of meaning.

For the same reason and by the same process that changed the meaning
of "fish" so that it no longer included sea mammals.

Documentaion of this?

You have
correctly pointed out the huge number of words whose meaning has not
changed, despite the new scientific knowledge that could have possibly
justified a change.

What you are missing is that changes like this can take place through
the _deliberate effort_ of people who are interested in the accuracy
of the language.

'Pus', 'heal', 'heel', 'heart', 'liver', 'kidney', 'wound', 'gouge',
'door', 'blood', 'tissue', 'death', etc. Tell me why we need to change
ANY of these words' meanings)!) based on new scientific knowledge.

People care that humans are part of the same
biological group that includes the other apes

I do, and it poses no problem for me at all.

or "the apes" if you
prefer.

It is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of usage.

They care enough about it to make sure that their children and
the children that they teach learn the correct _biological_ definition
of the word.

The notion is absurd. There is no 'correct' definition of 'door',
either. Custom (usage) is all there is.

Your point about pus was not without merit but no one
gives a shit about pus.

It serves as a good example. Why the hand-waving?

It is a bad example because there is no one interested in changing the
way the word is used.

There is no reason to change the meanings of words at all, for
educational purposes. It's a false, misguided belief that this needs
to be done ever, for any reason. I'm going to do a paper on this.

People are changing the meaning of the word
"ape," just as they changed the meaning of the word "fish," so
succesfully that you don't even realize that it was changed. You say
you are not acuainted with the usage of "fish" that includes whales
but it was still current in Melville's time, a very short time ago in
linguistic terms.

Evidence of this?

Are you seriously telling us that you, boasting about your level of
education and knowledge of language, are so lacking in any cultural
background that they have not read "Moby Dick"?

Uncultured boor.

RF


Educators and parents have enough influence over the next generation
that it is a certainty that your ideas about the usage and meaning of
"ape" will be obsolete in even the most informal and unsientific
circles very soon. This isn't hand-waving; it is the way the language
works.

Ain't it cool.
--

The change is not going to be instant and you will probably be dead
before nobody at all agrees with you. So take comfort.

Will in New Haven

--

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
fish /f / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fish]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural (especially
collectively) fish, (especially referring to two or more kinds or
species) fish·es, verb
-noun
1. any of various cold-blooded, aquatic vertebrates, having gills,
commonly fins, and typically an elongated body covered with scales.
2. (loosely) any of various other aquatic animals.
3. the flesh of fishes used as food.

In times past it was not out of place to call a dolphin, an orca or a
blue whale as "fish". Today, however, anybody who calls a dolphin or a
blue whale a "fish" these days is generally regarded as ignorant, and I
mean with all the negative implications of that word, not simply the
base definition of "lacking knowledge". At best your listeners/readers
will assume that you are a senior citizen, educated in a previous
generation, and are simply using the archaic meaning out of lifelong habit.

I am unacquainted with this usage.

Now here is the germane part - why did the definition of "fish" shrink
so that it no longer included cetaceans? Because of that group whom you
said are are too small to be allowed to change language - biologists.

Evidence for this?

Biologists said "No, cetaceans are aquatic mammals, not fish" and they
started using the term "fish" in a restricted sense. That scientific
usage eventually spread to the vernacular to the point where using the
archaic meaning today gets you branded as stupid and uneducated by the
general populace.

Now while the biological term "ape" is an expansion from the vernacular
usage rather than a restriction, like "fish" it is still the exact same
process. The only difference is that it is not as far along as "fish" is.

I can't wait to see what inconsistent balderdash you're going to use
this time to attempt escape out of this.

'Ape' has ALWAYS meant "non-human". It is an essential part of its
meaning.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... that "ape" means all members of Hominoidea, ... of "fish" so that it no longer included sea mammals. ... Custom (usage) is all there is. ... now you show that you know nothing about fiction. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... that "ape" means all members of Hominoidea, ... distortion of meaning. ... of "fish" so that it no longer included sea mammals. ... biologists]; you might as well admit that the vernacular meaning of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... that "ape" means all members of Hominoidea, ... distortion of meaning. ... of "fish" so that it no longer included sea mammals. ... you are not acuainted with the usage of "fish" that includes whales ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... distortion of meaning. ... of "fish" so that it no longer included sea mammals. ... Custom (usage) is all there is. ... Ishmael calls whales fish several times in the course of the book. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... that "ape" means all members of Hominoidea, ... distortion of meaning. ... of "fish" so that it no longer included sea mammals. ... It is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of usage. ...
    (talk.origins)