Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[Dreadbelly]

I fail to see it. Somehow if I change the meaning of word "monkey" to include "humans", I have proved evolution: is that the danger? A very strange slippery slope.

I don't think the Scopes Monkey Trial was an issue due to the mutibility of language, but rather of over-zealousness. A crime of which I think both you and I (and likely one other individual) might be guilty. In Scopes, it was religion. Here, I don't know from where the zealousness comes.

Professional jargon. In law we have "terms of art" that are governed by judicial decisions--but even then evolve from decision to decision. Accountants, Engineers I imagine all have their jargon which evolves. I would put it to you that these, as with common English, evolve within cultures. However, they evolve within smaller cultures delineated by professions.

Scientific jargon. I would suggest evolves in the same way as professional jargon. Scientific nomenclature: I understand there are system for it. I defy you to point to the system of development for English words that are allowed in Scrabble!

Language is NOT scientific and is NOT logical.

I only used those two events to show what happens when objectivity fails and an agenda enters in to science. Not that they actually have anything to do with language.

Don't reach for what isn't there. :grin:

[jkdesq]

Your post reminds me of one day sitting in the History Lounge during lunch hour. Plenty of people, all regulars who knew each other. In one corner some people discussing religion. On the couches, people chatting about politics. By the windows, people debating abortion. All very civil. All very polite.

THEN someone walked in and raised the issue of which way the tiolet paper roll goes on -- lead end to the back or to the front. All other discussions ended and CHAOS ENSUED. People yelling and screaming. Everyone one knew God's Law about how the tiolet paper roll goes on. Very amuzing moment to recollect.

[jkdesq]

I only used those two events to show what happens when objectivity fails and an agenda enters in to science. Not that they actually have anything to do with language.

Don't reach for what isn't there. :grin:

When science entered into the debate? What is your point? What does the Scopes Monkey trial or any branch of science have to do with the definition of "skirt" or "kilt"????

You're grasping at straws.

[Kilts_Knave]

When science entered into the debate?

Language is Science

I believe when it was said language is a science. Language is a tool of science, used to test and retest hypostheses. [Linguistics is a science because it studies the acquistion and the construction of language.]

This would rather be like saying a shovel is science, because a shovel is used as a tool in archaeology (although not necessarily). The construction of something, such as a shovel, is definitely a science --it is engineering. Any process, such as kilt-making (i.e. contruction) is a science. Is language a process or the result of process? [To say language is a process therefore language is a science: this would be the basis of saying language is a science, Dreadbelly. First we need to prove language is a process, and that scope is too broad for this forum. I don't know, I am not a linguist.]

But based on soley what I know know, I will say that whether or not a kilt is a skirt would have to be determined by those who construct kilts, the scientists who actually go through that scientific process, the kiltmakers. They all have ideas, hypotheses about what a kilt should look like, from research (i.e., retesting hypotheses of others); and, they reconstuct kilts based on this that they learn from history. They test and retest to ensure their products are in-line with what the historical model tells them.

I just seems to me that this discussion is based solely on semantics. Nothing of value can be concluded in a discussion based on semantics, there are just too many defintions for too many words, and a false dilemma inevitably develops.

Again, the only people who could possibly resolve it are those who know firsthand about the scientific process of kiltmaking-- and that it the kiltmakers. We should appeal to the authority of these who know best. And until kiltmakers begin referring to themselves as skirt-makers, I am inclined to think that a kilt is a bloody kilt!

[Freedomlover]

So two questions for you: i) if not from the culture, where do you think the definitions of English words come from? ii) I'll ask a THIRD TIME, why is it so important to you that kilts be viewed as a type of skirt? Give a responsive answer, please. I've given my answer before. I suspect you don't really read my postings.

I thought you wanted to simply agree to disagree?

i) I agree that word meanings are often derived from culture. And certain cannotations get attached the same way.

ii) And I will tell you once again that the kilt meets every descriptive qualification for 'skirt'. It is, for sure, a special subset of 'skirt', but it is a skirt nonetheless. Someone else said that people who do not accept that are in denial. I agree with him.

I do read your posts. Carefully.

I understand that you want nothing to do with women's clothing. Great. Neither do I. There is nothing feminine about the kilt. But it is a kind of skirt. Insisting that it isn't because "women wear skirts" is irrational.

I think we have gone far enough.

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

So that man by himself, with no one, and no woman to see him, if he makes a mistake, is he still wrong?

Ron, right on, that is basically my view. Based on my earlier alien encounter post, I am going to propose that the official new word for a kilt, skirt, MUG, lavalava, gho, etc. is "grinklecod" and pronounced "shwegrakma" (you expected phonetic spelling maybe from an alien species?), and defined in the Intrauniversal Crangongei dictionary, 763rd edition, as

i) a tubular article of clothing worn by a violent, bipedal species inhabiting the third planet orbiting a minor star in the Kuargrif quadrant. Referred to by the natives by a number of terms in a number of local languages and dialects (most unrponounceable by civilized species). The garment is constructed from any of a number of natural and artificial materials

ii) a large group of quadruped animals on the same planet and domesticated for food

iii) a small, winged creature on the same planet with an odd call that sounds like "aflac".

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

So that man by himself, with no one, and no woman to see him, if he makes a mistake, is he still wrong?

Oops, meant to reply to Dread and got on a tangent. Glad that never happens on any of these threads! :-D

Anyway, Dread, of course he is not wrong! With no one to see it and judge, the man must decide for himself, and since he has already decided to be kilted he has already declared that mistakes are for others and not him!

RJI

Oh, and BTW, over 100 posts and counting! Keep the discussion going!

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

...The construction of something, such as a shovel, is definitely a science --it is engineering. Any process, such as kilt-making (i.e. contruction) is a science....
But based on soley what I know know, I will say that whether or not a kilt is a skirt would have to be determined by those who construct kilts...

Kilt_nave, I agree that kiltmakers really are the ones that defien what they call a given garment, and I also agree that they follow a process to create that garment. However, I don't think that I would call following that process science.

[jkdesq]

"Often meanings are derived from culture". If it is not "always" and only "often," where else do the definitions of words come from? Answer the question. WHERE DO YOU THINK DEFINITIONS OF WORDS COME FROM?

Despite your comments that my position is irrational--evidencing that you do not respect my position--if you came up with a reasonable explanation for the source of word definitions I could be satisfied.

Any offer of an agreement to disagree is implicitly rejected when you parse out my posting (selectively) and rehash old arguments.

[bubba]

However, I don't think that I would call following that process science.

Kiltmaking is, imo, a mix of craft and art, not science. As for language, it doesn't only evolve, it gets mangled and mutilated as well through common usage. Just look at what's happened to the word gay over the years. That's just the way English is. It swipes words from just about every other language, alters meanings almost on a yearly basis, incorporates slang and jargon into the base language and adapts constantly. If someone wants to think of a kilt as a skirt that's not wrong under English usage, but those that don't see a kilt as a skirt aren't wrong either. Logic has nothing at all to do with the whole debate, it's entirely viewpoint and laguage usage.