|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I mean citing a Miriam Webster dictionary as a source of legal terms is beyond questionable, Poopy.
Is this an attempt at humor?
You understand a word's meaning is that intended by its speaker, requiring cooperation of both the speaker and listener to allow communication.
You understand a dictionary is a collection of how words have been used in the past, and not a prescriptive text about what words mean in the present or future.
You probably also understand legal definitions are not often the same as colloquial definitions.
For an otherwise cogent argument, this dilutes your point.
There's no ambiguity about what the term "kangaroo court" means, except in Ong's head.
If I have to explain what every word means to him when I speak it, we're going to be here forever.
Communication assumes the other person has a grasp of the vocabulary, not that he hasn't made up his own meanings for words that don't even make sense.
|
Reply With Quote