tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post114945848747428449..comments2023-10-24T17:21:16.565+02:00Comments on Sounds in the Hickory Wind: Apes and WikipediansThe Hickory Windhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-45183888290681556262010-11-13T17:30:24.556+01:002010-11-13T17:30:24.556+01:00...words mean what they are used to mean......words mean what they <b>are</b> used to mean...The Hickory Windhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-14380482618761083192010-11-13T17:28:29.002+01:002010-11-13T17:28:29.002+01:00Many (most) people have a feeling that words must ...Many (most) people have a feeling that words must have an intrinsic meaning that can be 'discovered' by those clever enough. Sometimes they find this meaning in the etymology of the word, sometimes in an archaic or obscure use, sometimes in a technical use, as here, or simply in an idiosyncratic use of their own. It isn't true, of course. As you say, words mean what they used to mean, no more and no less.<br /><br />We don't need to get Humpty Dumptyish about it, because it isn't a question, either, of dictating meaning, simply that words are used with different meanings in different contexts, and to pretend otherwise is not only pointless and rather stupid, but impedes communication, which is the main reason for having words in the first place.<br /><br />Another argument that is heard in the same comment thread is 'I asked a couple of my mates and they agree with me'. This from people who call themselves scientists. On the other hand if you quote a good dictionary, which is the product of the research of lexicographers who may sweat for months searching out thousands of uses of a word to identify common and less common shades of meaning, you will be told that it doesn't count, or that they're just wrong.<br /><br />And it's rather odd that the 'Ape' article includes mention of several animals commonly called apes which are not Hominoidea, but then pretends that the only correct use of ape is to refer to all members of that (super)family.<br /><br />One thing is certain; apes don't have to worry about these things.<br /><br /><i>I am tempted to say that they try to distinguish themselves from the other apes, but fail; and thus make monkeys of themselves.</i><br /><br />It's very tempting to drop that into the article's talk page, but I shall resist.The Hickory Windhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-46799800185580616362010-11-13T06:55:39.954+01:002010-11-13T06:55:39.954+01:00More seriously though, I concur strongly with your...More seriously though, I concur strongly with your wise decision, when you say "No, I didn't get involved in the row. I saw immediately what the problem was and that no one was going to listen however carefully I explained it."<br /><br />I have discovered this over the years in discussions with another blogger, Paul Martin, at <i>Original Faith</i>. Despite having studied in theological college, or perhaps because of it, he can't get over one basic stumbling block. He goes on as if the existence of a word proves that there is something in the world which corresponds to it; and that it is our important task to discover that thing and agree on what it is. Since he likes to do this with words like "Love", "Faith" and "Evil", you can see what absurdities result.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297306807695767580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-7215600317864720182010-11-13T06:49:19.600+01:002010-11-13T06:49:19.600+01:00The truth of your argument was demonstrated for me...The truth of your argument was demonstrated for me after a few seconds of following your Wikipedia link, when I discovered that Barbary apes are not apes but macaques, which are monkeys and therefore not apes.<br /><br />I never knew that a human is an ape but a monkey isn't.<br /><br />I have always found that Wittgenstein's view on the matter cuts through the dross like a hot knife through butter: "The meaning of a word is its use in the language."<br /><br />Scientists set themselves apart from the rest of humanity when they use words in their own specialised ways. I am tempted to say that they try to distinguish themselves from the other apes, but fail; and thus make monkeys of themselves.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297306807695767580noreply@blogger.com