First human

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 11:14 AM 3/31/98 -0800, Dave Gaban wrote:>DAVE G.

>Sorry Dicko, Your dictionary is wrong. And what makes you think your

>erronous dictionary definition was around when the King James version

>was written?


No dictionary is "wrong". Dictionaries record the way people
use words; they don't determine how people use words, at least
not knowledgeable people. This certainly isn't the sole
dictionary with this meaning. 

The first definition in _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary_, the best selling dictionary in English,
is "any of numerous small invertebrate animals (as spiders
or centipedes) that are more or less obviously segmented".
I doubt you anyone could find a good dictionary that didn't
have this definition since this is what the word means in
most cases.

The word 'insectum' in Latin, the past participle of insecare,
means 'cut'. It refers to the segmented body of insects, not
to their legs or arms or appendages in any way.

In the time of King James which was long before Linnaeus came
up with his arbitrary classification system, an insect meant
any bug, spider, scorpion, whatever. If you're going to 
attempt to argue word definitions, then you had pretty be
aware of the nature of definitions and the relationship
between words and concepts and reality.

As Wittgenstein pointed out, nearly all arguments are over
word definitions. No one on this list has said anything of
substance since I arrived, with the major exception of Ron
whom I leave alone since that discussion is rational for
the most part.

Dick Jones

• Previous message: First human
• Next message: First human
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]