Re: [tlug] [REMINDER] "Defending the Creative Commons"

[simon colston <simon@example.com>]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:37:46 +0900
Matt Doughty <wyndigo@example.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 08:03:27PM +0900, simon colston wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:49:02 +0900
> > Matt Doughty <wyndigo@example.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:48:48PM -0800, Brett Robson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I understand my girlfriend when she confuses 'a' and 'the', and
> > > > gets countable nouns completely screwed (she has many money), but
> > > > my mother doesn't understand her. We rely on a commonality for
> > > > understanding, you can just make stuff up.
> > > 
> > > Not true at all.  That is how things get into the vernacular. 
> > > Language is adapted and changes with the times and the world in
> > > which we live. It adapts.  I suspect he is using the term to
> > > represent process of designing, and implementing. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Surely it has got to be true.  Without such a commonality each
> > person's interpretation of a particular word could be different, which
> > leads to misunderstanding.  Language does evolve (which is both
> > necessary and very interesting) but if the speaker chooses to use a
> > word in a new way then the speaker risks being misunderstood.  People
> > end up 'suspecting' the meaning rather than 'understanding' it.
> > 
> 
> I clearly didn't snip enough previously.  People making up new uses for
> a word can be done, and is exactly how language evolves.  The new
> meanings are often tangential as opposed to orthoganal, but never the
> less they are new meanings.  Yes, we all really on an agreed upon
> commonality of meaning for the lion's share of comunication.  

All I objected to was the suggestion that 'we rely on a commonality for
understanding' was 'not true at all' but it obvious that you don't think
that.

> Also you are living in a different world from the rest of us if you
> believe that communication hinges on everone having the same
> understanding of the words they use.  

Re-read what I posted and you'll see that you are living in the same world
as me.  I'm not saying that people should refrain from using
words in new ways.  I explicitly stated that the evolution of language is
necessary and, of course, the only way that can happen is by someone
somewhere creating a new definition for a word whether by design or
accident.  The problem is that by using a new meaning the speaker
increases the chance of being misunderstood.

-- 
simon colston
simon@example.com