"Floyd Davidson" wrote:
So? I could probably come up with a single paragraph that used
at least 4 or 5 different meanings for the word "prime". Does
that make the more recently evolved meanings incorrect just
because there is also an older meaning?
Like most words in the English language, "prime" has many different
meanings. But not an *infinite* number of meanings; you cannot legitimately
just add new meanings willy-nilly because you happen to like them, or
because you support someone else's usage based on his misunderstanding of
the term in the first place.
You are again abusing facts. *I* have not somehow willy-nilly added a
new meaning. You are just willy-nilly claiming that common usage doesn't
equate to correctness, and that is an absurd statement on its face when
applied to language.
Some people misuse words because they misunderstand them, and apparently
think such misuse is perfectly legitimate and the actual meaning is
Yes. You have misused "adaption", "improvement", and "evolution" in
previous articles. That certainly doesn't make your usage correct, nor
will it make your logic valid.
But in the case of "prime", it is being *widely* used with the meaning
you claim is incorrect.
Hence we just add it to the list of words *you* cannot define correctly.
This is a somewhat annoying thing, and many years ago I coined
the term "Humpty-Dumptyism" to describe it. (I must admit I'm somewhat
disappointed that Humpty-Dumptyism has not, after all this time, really
caught on as an expression. :-) )
So we'll add another...
For those not very familiar with Lewis Carroll, I should explain (much
Humpty Dumpty, sitting on his wall, had a conversation with Alice in which
he used a certain word in an incomprehensible way. Alice told him she didn't
understand his use of that word. Humpty then gave her a quite lengthy, and
thoroughly wrong, definition for the word. "But the word doesn't mean that
at all," Alice protested. "The word means," Humpty replied, "what I choose
it to mean."
And there we see exactly what is wrong with your approach to
When the premises for your "logic" are based on words that mean
exactly what you want them to mean, but have a different meaning
to everyone else, your "logic" is invalid.
And I think we've seen enough of this thread to have drawn some
very well defined lines. Hence I see no point in further
discussion at this time. If you do come up with somethingr
rational, I'll respond though.
FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)