SUO: Re: SUOP Topic :> Definition Of Example
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT :> Example. Note 6
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOPT Outline. http://suo.ieee.org/email/thrd1.html#11635
TJ = Tom Johnston
Given the stimulus:
SUOPT :> Example 05. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11671.html
TJ e-mits response:
TJ: Think of this: Why are dictionaries periodically revised?
More specifically, why are existing words given revised
definitions?
TJ: The answer is that, over time (and speaker), the patterns of usage
for such dictionary entries (words) begin to deviate from the patterns
prescribed by the dictionary definition. When the deviation is substantial
enough -- the deviation between the dictionary definition and the usage of
those educated speakers whose usage is considered paradigmatic for the words
in question -- we can say that the dictionary is wrong. Eventually, when it
gets wrong enough for enough words, it becomes worthwhile to formalize the
new patterns of usage by revising the definitions and issuing a new edition
of the dictionary.
TJ: We think of dictionaries as prescriptive,
as telling us what THE MEANING of a word is.
Who's "we"? Speak for yourself. Include me out. ~" (non-ditto). Etc.
TJ: And dictionaries are indeed prescriptive, for a given speaker,
for just those words he is unfamiliar with. But dictionaries
have their prescriptive force because they are, reciprocally,
descriptive -- descriptive of the patterns of usage of those
speakers generally accepted as knowledgeable in the relevant
area, and whose usage is beyond reproach, even by the OED.
TJ: The correct answer to those who continually ask "What do you mean by 'X'?"
is not an appeal to the OED. The correct answer is to request evidence that
the usage of "X" by members of our linguistic community (the SUO group, for
example) is different enough, from speaker to speaker, that we are in danger
of misunderstanding one another. "Different enough", of course, is relative
to the shared purpose which unites us in a community project.
TJ: For many of the terms that Jon has requested a clarification of,
I think the burden of proof is on him. "Example", for example.
If you write a document in which various examples are included,
and on reading it I am inclined to say "Those aren't really
examples", then we've come to a relevant difference in what
you and I mean by "example". At that point, we need to
decide if the difference is "enough" to matter. If not,
we just proceed. If it is, we clarify what we mean by
"example" enough to resolve the difference at issue,
and then proceed.
TJ: We do NOT provide a complete and completely unambiguous definition
for all the terms of art that we will be using, all before we get
started. The notion that we ever could do something like that,
it seems to me, went out with logical atomism.
TJ: But perhaps I misunderstand Jon's request for definitions.
Tom,
The answer to that perhappenstance is "yes".
I'll try it again tomorrow when my eyes are less blurry,
but in the meantime read my Gung Ho homily of invitation
to my intent -- my informal intent -- and my "Method" of
choice for this discussion of a focally Procedural nature,
for all the periphery of Ontological issues that it raises:
SUOPT :> Definition 02. http://suo.ieee.org/email/msg11652.html
What you are saying here is verisimilar to a discussion that we had
already about Quine's 2-Dogma, and even though I already believed
a part of his conclusion -- a more thorough pragmatism, indeed --
this is the very point where he so slips a cog in his argument
that I wouldn't credit the account if only on Quine's marker,
if lacking that of his scarcely credited co-signatory, CSP.
The short schrift is that we are in a Procedual context, and so
the fuss at large that one goes through to argue the aptness of
"crass operational utilitarian definitions", as it's oftenwrong
put, can be set aside for the crass motive of getting some work
done with one's words. How to do that, exactly, or roughly, or
readily, is what we're about at the moment.
Geronimo!!!
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o