So yesterday i comented in my cc about how the word heresy comes from the the greek word haerisis and that one possible translation of this word is choice and that, by definition then, herasy means that you are being accused of choosing your own fate or making a choice rather then blindly following dogma.

 

I'm not sure why but after this another of my clan mates had a blow out and when so far as to say that i was "poisoning the minds of impretionable young people" might not be the exact words but its close enough. He then started to bring up other hot topics such as marriage to say that words have meaning and that they are actually important to some people. I'm not complaining or anything because I have this same discusion with a co-worker every other week and am used to it now, but it did get me thinking.

 

Why is it that people will defend the definition of certain words such as justice, mariage, religion, ect as if it is a fight for life and death.

 

Justice for instance, in the middle ages it consisted of any peasant being accused of a crime to be tortured because it was believed that they were not inteligant enough to tell the truth. Another instance is the inocent unless proven guilty concept that we use today. It was actually rare in most medival societies for this to be true and you either had to prove that you were innocent or be summilarily sentanced by the local ruler, dictator, ect.

 

Marriage and religion are the other two big ones but theres enough topics about those two that i'll leave them alone.

 

So why is it that people try to defend a words "meaning" even though that meaning has been constantly shifting throughout history?

Good question. Ever since my English taught me that you can't use hopefully the same way you use ideally, I cringe every time I hear it.

The study of the origins of words is etymology, this is not the same as the meaning of words. Language is always evolving, think of Shakespearean English - in Shakespeare's era that was standard spoken English. Since then it evolved gradually to what we know know. In a couple of hundred years, the English we speak now will seem archaic.

http://www.youtube.com/user/hotforwords

 

enjoy your orgasm.

I don't get the problem, you explained the origin of a word, and this guy went crazy about you not respecting justice?

People do care too much about words. The purpose of talking is to communicate messages. There's no real point arguing over the definition of a word if every party concerned knows and understands the message being communicated. People will defend a word's meaning because they take language too seriously and worry too much about what it is and not what it's for. Human intelligence comes at a price.

I don't get the problem, you explained the origin of a word, and this guy went crazy about you not respecting justice?

 

No i was just using justice as an example. His original rant was about marriage but theres already to many topics about that and religion floating around so i thought i'd go with something els.

Defining and contextualizing words like murder, marriage, abortion, freedom, and so on are some of the most important things that our government, and any society for that matter, can do. Millions of people have died for their take on certain words, to trivialize their cause is nothing short of shortsighted.

People do care too much about words. The purpose of talking is to communicate messages. There's no real point arguing over the definition of a word if every party concerned knows and understands the message being communicated. People will defend a word's meaning because they take language too seriously and worry too much about what it is and not what it's for. Human intelligence comes at a price.

As the purpose of language is to facilitate communication, that is, the conveyance of meaning, then it is the speaker's responsibility to ensure that the words they use communicate the ideas that they wish to communicate. There is no reason not to take language seriously when there is a chance that people will misinterpret your ideas. Among friends who are accustomed to speaking to each other, miscommunication isn't a huge issue, but ideas must be presented with clarity when talking to other people.

 

Incidentally, there is an idea which comes up in linguistic philosophy that suggests that it is impossible for listeners to understand what a speaker wishes to communicate via language, as there will always be a discrepancy between how the listener decodes and interprets words, and what the speaker thinks their words actually mean.

 

Incidentally, fix your spelling, OP.

The Hermaneutic Circle is always ground away.

People do care too much about words. The purpose of talking is to communicate messages. There's no real point arguing over the definition of a word if every party concerned knows and understands the message being communicated. People will defend a word's meaning because they take language too seriously and worry too much about what it is and not what it's for. Human intelligence comes at a price.

As the purpose of language is to facilitate communication, that is, the conveyance of meaning, then it is the speaker's responsibility to ensure that the words they use communicate the ideas that they wish to communicate. There is no reason not to take language seriously when there is a chance that people will misinterpret your ideas. Among friends who are accustomed to speaking to each other, miscommunication isn't a huge issue, but ideas must be presented with clarity when talking to other people.

 

Incidentally, there is an idea which comes up in linguistic philosophy that suggests that it is impossible for listeners to understand what a speaker wishes to communicate via language, as there will always be a discrepancy between how the listener decodes and interprets words, and what the speaker thinks their words actually mean.

 

Incidentally, fix your spelling, OP.

 

I agree on everything, but what's up with the Ph.D like language?

 

And I still don't really get the problem. You explained to him where the word heracy comes from, as in you explained its origin, but the person you explained it to flipped over the meaning of marriage? Or did he get mad over the meaning of heracy, that you were somehow not taking it seriously by explaining its origin. And come on man, it's marriage, not marridge...

People do care too much about words. The purpose of talking is to communicate messages. There's no real point arguing over the definition of a word if every party concerned knows and understands the message being communicated. People will defend a word's meaning because they take language too seriously and worry too much about what it is and not what it's for. Human intelligence comes at a price.

As the purpose of language is to facilitate communication, that is, the conveyance of meaning, then it is the speaker's responsibility to ensure that the words they use communicate the ideas that they wish to communicate. There is no reason not to take language seriously when there is a chance that people will misinterpret your ideas. Among friends who are accustomed to speaking to each other, miscommunication isn't a huge issue, but ideas must be presented with clarity when talking to other people.

 

Incidentally, there is an idea which comes up in linguistic philosophy that suggests that it is impossible for listeners to understand what a speaker wishes to communicate via language, as there will always be a discrepancy between how the listener decodes and interprets words, and what the speaker thinks their words actually mean.

 

Incidentally, fix your spelling, OP.

 

I agree on everything, but what's up with the Ph.D like language?

 

And I still don't really get the problem. You explained to him where the word heracy comes from, as in you explained its origin, but the person you explained it to flipped over the meaning of marriage? Or did he get mad over the meaning of heracy, that you were somehow not taking it seriously by explaining its origin. And come on man, it's marriage, not marridge...

 

What in the world are you smoking? He didn't use a single word that the common, educated person wouldn't understand. It sounds like the person who got angry was religious and felt that by undermining the negative connotation of the word 'heresy,' the OP was somehow justifying the rejection of religion. Sounds like it was probably an extremely annoying conversation.

 

It's also 'heresy,' not 'heracy.'

People do care too much about words. The purpose of talking is to communicate messages. There's no real point arguing over the definition of a word if every party concerned knows and understands the message being communicated. People will defend a word's meaning because they take language too seriously and worry too much about what it is and not what it's for. Human intelligence comes at a price.

As the purpose of language is to facilitate communication, that is, the conveyance of meaning, then it is the speaker's responsibility to ensure that the words they use communicate the ideas that they wish to communicate. There is no reason not to take language seriously when there is a chance that people will misinterpret your ideas. Among friends who are accustomed to speaking to each other, miscommunication isn't a huge issue, but ideas must be presented with clarity when talking to other people.

 

Incidentally, there is an idea which comes up in linguistic philosophy that suggests that it is impossible for listeners to understand what a speaker wishes to communicate via language, as there will always be a discrepancy between how the listener decodes and interprets words, and what the speaker thinks their words actually mean.

 

Incidentally, fix your spelling, OP.

 

I agree on everything, but what's up with the Ph.D like language?

 

And I still don't really get the problem. You explained to him where the word heracy comes from, as in you explained its origin, but the person you explained it to flipped over the meaning of marriage? Or did he get mad over the meaning of heracy, that you were somehow not taking it seriously by explaining its origin. And come on man, it's marriage, not marridge...

 

What in the world are you smoking? He didn't use a single word that the common, educated person wouldn't understand. It sounds like the person who got angry was religious and felt that by undermining the negative connotation of the word 'heresy,' the OP was somehow justifying the rejection of religion. Sounds like it was probably an extremely annoying conversation.

 

It's also 'heresy,' not 'heracy.'

 

I knew I spelled it wrong, just had no idea how else to spell it. And it's not like I didn't understand him, it's just that he seemed to be picking the longest words he can find to say something that could've been said in a simpler way. But yeah, it probably was an annoying conversation.

It's Marriage not Marridge, only word I know thats connected to marriage is Nuptials.

I knew I spelled it wrong, just had no idea how else to spell it. And it's not like I didn't understand him, it's just that he seemed to be picking the longest words he can find to say something that could've been said in a simpler way. But yeah, it probably was an annoying conversation.

In that case, please rephrase my post in a "simpler" way which doesn't change its original meaning.

 

I type the way I do because I want the meaning of my posts to be as unambiguous as possible, ironic statements excepted.

People do care too much about words. The purpose of talking is to communicate messages. There's no real point arguing over the definition of a word if every party concerned knows and understands the message being communicated. People will defend a word's meaning because they take language too seriously and worry too much about what it is and not what it's for. Human intelligence comes at a price.

As the purpose of language is to facilitate communication, that is, the conveyance of meaning, then it is the speaker's responsibility to ensure that the words they use communicate the ideas that they wish to communicate. There is no reason not to take language seriously when there is a chance that people will misinterpret your ideas. Among friends who are accustomed to speaking to each other, miscommunication isn't a huge issue, but ideas must be presented with clarity when talking to other people.

 

Incidentally, there is an idea which comes up in linguistic philosophy that suggests that it is impossible for listeners to understand what a speaker wishes to communicate via language, as there will always be a discrepancy between how the listener decodes and interprets words, and what the speaker thinks their words actually mean.

 

Incidentally, fix your spelling, OP.

 

Sorry i'm using a new abi word and the spell checker on it stinks.

 

And to clarify my clan mate brought up marriage to try and say that words do have meaning and that I should be more, i think he was trying to say careful about what a words meaning actually was but didn't use such kind language about it.

I knew I spelled it wrong, just had no idea how else to spell it. And it's not like I didn't understand him, it's just that he seemed to be picking the longest words he can find to say something that could've been said in a simpler way. But yeah, it probably was an annoying conversation.

In that case, please rephrase my post in a "simpler" way which doesn't change its original meaning.

 

I type the way I do because I want the meaning of my posts to be as unambiguous as possible, ironic statements excepted.

 

Meh, I won't bother, like I said, it's not really hard to understand, so just ignore my post.

It really depends on the situation. There should be no confusion about what a word means when it comes to the government. But as for songs and books, the audience enjoys it when you use words flexibly and there is no harm done if somebody misinterprets something.

Good question. Ever since my English taught me that you can't use hopefully the same way you use ideally, I cringe every time I hear it.

 

Now I'm curious...

 

Explain why not?

Good question. Ever since my English taught me that you can't use hopefully the same way you use ideally, I cringe every time I hear it.

 

Now I'm curious...

 

Explain why not?

Because if you say "hopefully the computer will work" it means as the computer works, it will be full of hope. Ideally means in the best of cases, the computer will work.

 

http://grammar.about.com/od/grammarfaq/f/sentadvqa.htm