In any event, you've addressed a fairly minor point in my original post, which is that all other dictionaries are crap with the OED being, to paraphrase RR, the shining city on a hill.
chess.com ratings are deflated against USCF
Sort:
JasonSchlotter wrote:
In any event, you've addressed a fairly minor point in my original post, which is that all other dictionaries are crap with the OED being, to paraphrase RR, the shining city on a hill.
I guess things like slang and dialects don't exist for you...they are hard to ignore where I come from.
Havin_a_TIA wrote:
There is a world outside of the United States trailer park.
Sure there is, I live in it smart ass...
Havin_a_TIA wrote:
There is a world outside of the United States trailer park.
<snort> Snob alert.
Dec 30, 2013
0
#567
SmyslovFan wrote:
What was the topic?
Is Michael Tall better than Capablanca?
Ramjet1957 wrote:
Havin_a_TIA wrote:
There is a world outside of the United States trailer park.
<snort> Snob alert.
Yes, unfortunately there were some socioeconomic undertones related to much of the previous posts...this suddenly brought the truth out...
I was actually hoping he and the other fellow came back so I could discuss if they'd prefer to be called pendejos, since they thought there could be only one absolute, immutable definition of the word and all words for that matter ?
My point was that there is only one definition of a word though, depending on context, there can be more than one. But in that case there is still only one definition determined by the context. If it were otherwise it would be very difficult for us to understand one and other. At the very least, let us strive for precision.
JasonSchlotter wrote:
My point was that there is only one definition of a word though, depending on context, there can be more than one. But in that case there is still only one definition determined by the context. If it were otherwise it would be very difficult for us to understand one and other. At the very least, let us strive for precision.
Occassionly the innuendos are able to influence a statement,with more than one definition but, I knew what you meant. People are often too quick to site rules and forget there are almost always exceptions.
I am all for perfection, but no matter if the brightest minds on the planet get together and try to determine absolute definitions for speech, trying to dictate to others is even more foolish than than making no attempt to have some sort of standards.
People are often defiant rebels by nature. Just to spite your system and to be different, they'll make a greater mockery of things than is currently muddling speech and understanding.
Are you people arguing about the Oxford English Dictionary? 
Let me just say, and I actually attended Oxford, that there is nothing particularly magical or special about the OED. The problem with all dictionaries is that they were written by people, and people aren't all that great. The sole purpose of a dictionary is to explain a word to someone who apparently doesn't know what the word means. If you actually knew the word, you wouldn't need the dictionary! Therefore, if you use the dictionary a lot, you clearly don't understand the language very well, and so you aren't in a very good position to state whether (or not) a particular dictionary is any good.
I'm surpised anyone cares about the ratings enough to doggedly debate the issue for 14 months!
JasonSchlotter wrote:
I rank the compilation of the OED as one of the top 10 achievements of mankind. I proudly keep a print version of the OED on my desk.
Wow! a collection of words right up there with the discovery of fission, space flight, and The Great Wall?!
JasonSchlotter wrote:
My point was that there is only one definition of a word though, depending on context, there can be more than one. But in that case there is still only one definition determined by the context. If it were otherwise it would be very difficult for us to understand one and other. At the very least, let us strive for precision.
Better open up that OED again. It's a rare dictionary that has only one definition of any given word.
AdamRinkleff wrote:
Are you people arguing about the Oxford English Dictionary? Let me just say, and I actually attended Oxford, that there is nothing particularly magical or special about the OED. The problem with all dictionaries is that they were written by people, and people aren't all that great. The sole purpose of a dictionary is to explain a word to someone who apparently doesn't know what the word means. If you actually knew the word, you wouldn't need the dictionary! Therefore, if you use the dictionary a lot, you clearly don't understand the language very well, and so you aren't in a very good position to state whether (or not) a particular dictionary is any good.
So glad to have you back. It's nice that we can end the year with more idiotic commentary from you. How did attending Oxford give you any particular insight into the workings of the Oxford University Press which is, for all purposes, a separately run department of the University? Given your background in military history, do you also have thoughts you would like to share about Oxford's music program?
Using the dictionary a lot means you don't know the language well? Perhaps you should upgrade your reading material. Try reading pretty much any article written by Conrad Black in Canada's National Post. If I'm not looking up five words per article then Conrad is having a slow day.
And if you knew anything about the OED, and the state of other attempts to define words at the time (I hesitate to call them dictionaries), you would have an understanding of what a singular achievement it was, brought about by grand ambition and the coordinated efforts of thousands, spread over generations.
bigpoison wrote:
JasonSchlotter wrote:
My point was that there is only one definition of a word though, depending on context, there can be more than one. But in that case there is still only one definition determined by the context. If it were otherwise it would be very difficult for us to understand one and other. At the very least, let us strive for precision.
Better open up that OED again. It's a rare dictionary that has only one definition of any given word.
Revisit my point about context.
What does decadent mean?
Check the OED.
JasonSchlotter wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
JasonSchlotter wrote:
My point was that there is only one definition of a word though, depending on context, there can be more than one. But in that case there is still only one definition determined by the context. If it were otherwise it would be very difficult for us to understand one and other. At the very least, let us strive for precision.
Better open up that OED again. It's a rare dictionary that has only one definition of any given word.
Revisit my point about context.
And once again, you still miss the point about innuendo and dialects...
If you don't understand the context to begin with, it doesn't do you a bit of good...BTW, you are begining to redefine certian words in that OED you hold to such a perpetual standard, simply because you don't know when to quit...
I could not disagree more. There is no subjectivity in what I said. While I appreciate that language does not have the precision of mathematics we strive for definitions of words that are understood objectively. A word should have one definition, perhaps varying by context, but even given context one definition only. We need precision when it comes to the expression of ideas. If we need a new word to express a slight variation we can do that. But the new word will still have its objectively precise meaning. And ignorant people do use words incorrectly en masse. Consider the word "fulsome". But nonetheless the word has one meaning notwithstanding the nitwits who can't be bothered to look it up. Objective definitions of words do not bar new words being added, or other fluidity of language.