Subject: Should we redefine terms? |
Bible Note: Sir Pent: I have to agree with you. Early on in the history of the forum, I observed that the following is a cause of much disagreement and misunderstanding among people: Two people in a debate often use the same English word to mean two entirely different things. Often one person uses an English word in the everyday, ordinary, universal sense of the word; whereas the other side of the debate ascribes a unique and private meaning to the same word. The point is: how can two people discuss/debate an issue if they can't even agree on the definition of key words used in the discussion? It has also been said that the meaning of English words has changed. To the one who says that, I would ask: What is your point? Of course, language changes. We all know that. Any dynamic language changes. It's a fact of life. We don't resolve changes in the language by denying their existence. Instead we keep abreast of how a word is currently used. I'm not saying anyone here has said this, but I've actually known (KJV-only) people who claim that it is "wrong" to change how a word is used or what it means. (I am talking now about changes that are accepted and recognized by the general population -- not those instances where an individual makes up any meaning he wants for a word and insists that his meaning is the only valid one.) As I see it, to assert that it is "wrong" for a society to change how it uses a word is just plain silly. God did not hand down the Webster's English dictionary of 1829 with the warning that "Thou shalt not add to or take away from the words of this book." Come on, people. A little common sense, please. kalos |