From: The Pantophobic (trivik@stwing.upenn.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 03:14:20 BST
> I see three reasons not to use a different word. The first is, as Steve
> says, the old words have an old value that has been wiped out by the
> combined efforts of fundamentalists and secularists. To recover this old
> value is to both recover and make them new.
but then there is always a risk that the current meaning will be recovered in
the feature once you have reverted the meaning to the original - too many
layers, increasing the posibility of ambiguaty/missunderstaning, and context
dependant meanings
> The second is that there are no different words, or at least I can't
> think of any. One method is to use foreign words (typically from
> Sanskrit) but that raises different problems in miscommunication (like
> treating "maya" as "illusion").
the french government actually creates new french sounding words for new
technologies like computers and astronaught
> The third is political. Philosophy is all about redefining really basic
> words, like "reality". That's what the MOQ is trying to do, for example.
> This has social effects.
redifining = scrapping part or whole of old definition + creating new
definition. 2 steps in place of one. besides if you create a new word you have
expanded your vocabulary, while replaceing meaning does not.
useing old stuff is gen. sloppy buisness, makeing use of it is not though.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:52 GMT