From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Using the dictionary
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:09:25 GMT

In article <fysn19+.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

-awerling@nmsu.edu writes:

   >It's very easy to crack open a dictionary and use it to define
   >something.  But that is really very dishonest.  

-   Dishonest? You're joking, right?

Nope.  A dictionary is a starting point.  It's when you hear the word
"antidisestablishmentarianism" and want to know what it means.  With a
word like "sexist" or "feminism," you have a tremendous social energy
exerting itself on how those words are used.  There is no way a
dictionary can successfully define words like that, when currently the
terms are embedded with new and buzzing implications.  Socially and
societally.


   >                                              A dictionary is only a
   >starting point.  Look up the definition of "love" and tell me if you
   >agree that it is inclusive with how you feel about what love is.

- And if there is not even a common starting point, what then? Imagine
- a band all playing from different music. It would have much in common
- with some conversations seen in certain netgroups.

That is true.  How does your dictionary define "sexism"?  The
dictionary here in the computer lab is dated 1960, and doesn't have a
definition at all.  I wonder how a modern dictionary will define that
word.  

The thing is, we all know that the way we use the word "sexist" is
*not* in some way "neutral."  The word has negative implications.  A
dictionary probably will not capture what we mean when we say
"sexist." 

My only point is that a dictionary is not very useful when we all know
the basic premise of a word.  Now, if you want to drag out the Oxford
English Dictionary, you'll discover some entymology and history.  But
even that is going to be incredibly unmodern.

   >We as a society are very conscious of what "he" and "she" means, even
   >if it is not in an intentionally sexist context.  Same with "his,"
   >"himself," etc.  Same with "sexist."  How are the words understood and
   >used within our society?  That is all that matters.  

- And if there are 2 camps, who then is correct? 

You want a black and white answer?  I mean, I could be an asshole and
just say "the camp I'm in is correct."  I'm not going to do that.  I'm
also not going to back my arguments with a dictionary when we're
discussing word we already know the definitions to.

No one is disputing that "Freshman" or the neutral "he" is understood
as gender-neutral.  The *implications* of said *useage* are what we
are discussing here.

   >                                                     The dictionary is
   >only a launching pad towards understanding anything.  You people
   >already know what these terms mean.  

-   If there were agreement, this thread would not exist.

Nonsense.  We all know that he is used gender-neutrally.  The thread
is about the implications.  The effects.   What such a useage *does*.

   >                                      Leave the dictionary alone.
   >Let's figure this stuff out based on our experiences with how people
   >act, react, and interact.  

-   That's right, lets just give words our own personal definition.
-   Outstanding communication is bound to be the result. :^)

You misunderstand.  I hope by now you understand where I'm coming from.

   >After all, that *is* what these discussions are ultimately about, yes?

-   Different people have different "experiences", the experiences are
-   what they are about. But if we all mean different things when using
-   the same words, these experiences cannot be shared.

That's true.  But we are all using the same words here.  

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.