Re: What is Confusion?
- From: "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:27:19 -0700
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:82f4fe8b-539b-48ae-9aa2-d6ea005aa3c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Dec 3, 1:09 am, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip
In English, "confusion" is a borrowing from Latin, where it was
compounded from _cum_ or _con_ ("with," "together"), and _fundere_
("to pour"), indicating a mixture of things. Originally, "confusion"
was the state of having been "confounded."
Obviously there is no contradiction between your source and my
rendering. But mine is precise, makes perfect sense, and is therefore
superior.
"Two plus two equals seven point three-six" is precise and makes
perfect sense, but it's really wrong, and in no way superior to "two
and two is four." Neither is your etymology, which confuses the "con"
in "confusion" (from the Latin word for "with") with the unrelated
"contra" (from the Latin for "against") in "contrary" and
"contradiction."
I never based my rendering on etmyology. I did only after you based
your rendering of the same word on etymology.
Ray, this is how you began your original post:
<begin quoted material>
"Confusion" is a contraction of two words, "contrary" and "fusion."
"Confusion" is therefore the fusion of two contrary concepts.
<end quoted material>
If this isn't basing your "rendering" on etymology, then what is it?
You showed "mixing
together.
Which is the accepted, and well established derivation of the term. Yours
was wrong.
" I re-described "mixing together" as the fusion of contrary
ideas or concepts (= confusion). This is perfectly accurate based on
the etymology that you provided.
Except that your "rendering" was mistaken. The derivation of the word was
not the "fusion of contrary ideas", but rather mixing of ideas. There's no
implication of contrary ideas. That was most likely one of Gene Scott's
folk etymologies, and it's wrong.
My initial rendering was based on one of the *other* four categories
(which I intentionally failed to identify).
It doesn't matter. Your "initial rendering" was wrong. Anything else is
just you trying to weasel out of your error.
"Confusion" is the fusion or mixing together of contrary or
contradicting or confounding [concepts]----all are correct. What is
also quite obvious is your total evasion of every thing I said while
arguing tangential nonsense.
If a point is worth making, it's worth making correctly, surely?
How is "mixing together" and the "fusion of contrary concepts" (=
confusion) not synonymous?
Because ''mixing together" does not imply that the things being mixed are
contrary. The modern meaning of "confused" as mental state is a later
usage, that was not intended by the person, or persons who coined the term.
Besides, if you can be so very wrong about this, why should we trust
you on matters on which you have a much stronger emotional commitment,
but show no more sign of scholarship?
I ask for no trust. I made an argument and I based it on YOUR
etymology.
You don't have any trust anyway, and you are expecting everyone to accept
your word, without any support at all. Your "argument" was wrong, and
derived from your own use of a folk etyomology that was wrong.
snip
Etymologies and definitions are quite different things, and many words
have meanings that are only tangentially or remotely connected to
their roots. Even if you were right, and "confusion" were a
portmanteau of "contrary" and "fusion," that would not show that the
word actually *meant* "a fusion of contradictory ideas."
Right. It means that it could be one valid definition among others.
But it's not a valid definition, which is the point.
Since what I have argued makes perfect sense, and since it is based
and supported by etymology, I have a valid meaning or definition.
Ray, your usage neither makes sense, or is supported by any legitimate
etymology. You are just making up meanings for words, which no one else
recognizes.
Go ahead and tell us: how does "fusion of contrary [concepts or
ideas]" not convey the essence of "confusion"? (One can substitute any
noun or nouns in the bracket.]
First of all confusion is a mental state, marked by uncertianty. It's not
normally considered to be fusion of two contary ideas, but rather inability
to understand one, or more idea. Your definition is closer to "cognative
dissonance". Why not use words already in use, and use their accepted
meaings?
Nor, for
that matter, does showing that "confusion" is derived from roots
meaning "to pour together," mean that cake batter is confused (as the
words are used in ordinary English).[?]
No one would consider cake batter confused or be confused by cake
batter.
Yet that is what the word orignally meant. "confused" meant "mixed
togehter", not a mental conditon. The word was later used to describe a
muddled thoughts, by extension.
The root description phrase "to pour together" is speaking
about "confusion" and its understood meaning.
Apparently you are confused about the meaing of the word "confused".
Said phrase presupposes
the pouring together of contrary things, ideas, concepts, etc.etc.
Are milk, eggs and flour "contrary things"?
It
is not arbitrary, inclusive of cake batter, since cakes are known to
have many different colors.
What does the color of a cake have to do with the mixing of the ingredients?
It is inclusive of chess pieces though,
since these items MUST be two very different colors, if not confusion
would result.
Chess pieces of different colors is not a problem, if the sets themselves
are different. For example, one side could play a civil war set, while
the other side plays a "Simpsons" chess set. Mixing the colors would have
no confusing effect.
snip
1. Etmyological; tracing word origins, determining first use and what
the word meant when it was first used; what the word came to mean in
subsequent uses and what the user meant it to mean each and everytime
it was used.
May I offer a few points here?
Note: Steven could not produce any of the four remaining categories.
Undoubtedly Steven could produce the "four remaining categories" if there
was any compelling reason to do so. There's no reason why anyone should,
as it doesn't matter.
And I take back the suggestion that you might not be educated.
Well, Ray, no one will ever take back that suggestion with you.....
First, etymology can be profoundly uninformative about the meaning of
words, as I pointed out above.
That is why there are four more categories----agreed.
Steven is not agreeing that such categories are relevant.
Knowing that _Basilosaurus_ comes from
roots meaning "royal or imperial" and "lizard" will not enable you to
figure out what sort of animal it was (an extinct, long-bodied, small-
headed whale with hind legs). Etymology will not even necessarily
tell you what a word meant when it was originally coined; the original
meaning may have been a loose analogy or metaphor rather than a
literal description of something.
Okay....what's the point? (Literal question.)
That the etymology of a word doesn't necessarily affect how it's used in
general practice. The word "blizzard" originally meant a heavy blow, not
a snowstorm. The etymology of the word isn't always going to help
understand how it's used today.
Second, many users (present company decidedly not excepted) use words
without knowing how educated speakers of the language use them (more
simply, they use them wrongly). It may be impossible to figure out
how a poor writer and thinker means a word to be understood; he may
indeed have no clear meaning at all. And usage in previous centuries
may or may not be a guide to his present meaning.
Again, etymology knows this.
What's a shame is that Ray doesn't know this.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Note: Steven could not produce any of the four remaining categories.
Note that none of the four remaining categories are relevant to this
discussion, even if there are such "categories".
snip
The meaning of words is not self-evident, but examination of
dictionaries and contemporary usage indicates that you are in fact
wrong. It is neither brazen nor dishonest to point out that you are
wrong about the etymology and meaning alike of "confusion."
I am not wrong. And I agree that the meaning of words is not self-
evident. My rendering, in this case, was, and remains.
Yes, Ray, you are wrong, and your "rendering" was wrong as well.
It is dishonest to deny.
No, it's dishonest to try to weasel out of a simple mistake. All you have
to do admit you were misled on the derivation of the word.
snip
Self-evident subjective nonsense.
You keep using that phrase "self-evident." I think it does not mean
what you think it means. In any case, I was quoting the traditional
definition of "creationism." There is nothing subjective about that.
I note that there are alternative meanings to the word.
Fine. Remember you said there are alternate meanings. My definition of
"confusion" is NOT alternate, but synonymous with etymology evidence.
Your definition is not in use by anyone, and it's wrong. Making up your
own defintions of common words simply makes it difficult to communicate
effectively. Perhaps that's your reason for doing that.
I hope you will recognize.
It's unlikely that Steven shares the same derangement of thought that you
do, so recognition is also unlikely.
snipping the rest
DJT
.
- References:
- What is Confusion?
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: What is Confusion?
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: What is Confusion?
- From: Ray Martinez
- What is Confusion?
- Prev by Date: Re: The intrinsic Factor VS. The Unlikely
- Next by Date: Re: What is Confusion?
- Previous by thread: Re: What is Confusion?
- Next by thread: Re: What is Confusion?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
