Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[jkdesq]

Amen Bubba

[Freedomlover]

"Often meanings 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?

I will cite an example: protactinium.

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.

I respect your right to your opinion, and have said so many times. But I do not respect the opinion itself for the sound reasons previously given.

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

Read it again:

I thought you wanted to simply agree to disagree?

I did not offer to agree to disagree. YOU DID in your post #83.

This has become pointless.

[jkdesq]

I will cite an example: protactinium.

Answer the question, WHERE DO YOU THINK THE DEFINITION OF WORDS COME FROM? An answer relating solely to scientific nomenclature is completely irrelevant as "skirt" and "kilt" are not scientific words.

There is a point. You have made us all read your postings. I believe you owe it to us to explain your view on where word meanings obtain their validity.

Yes, I know I offered to "agree to disagree". Apparently, you think you can accept and reject at the same time?

You "respect" my position, you just think it is irrational and wrong? Strange kind of respect.

[Freedomlover]

Answer the question, WHERE DO YOU THINK THE DEFINITION OF WORDS COME FROM? An answer relating solely to scientific nomenclature is completely irrelevant as "skirt" and "kilt" are not scientific words.

You said that words "always" come from culture. I have shown that to be untrue. Sorry if that doesn't suit you, but "always" (your choice of word) is a universal class that has no exceptions.

There is a point. You have made us all read your postings. I believe you owe it to us to explain your view on where word meanings obtain their validity.

Nonesense. I have not "made" anyone do anything. People read what they want to.

Yes, I know I offered to "agree to disagree". Apparently, you think you can accept and reject at the same time?

That is a non sequitur.

[Kilts_Knave]

Kilts are no more "skirts for men" than shirts are "blouses for men".

Devil's advocate here-- Marines refer to their dress shirts as "blouses."

[bubba]

Scientific terms are completely arbitrary and fixed. They have little to do with language in the general sense.

[Freedomlover]

Scientific terms are completely arbitrary and fixed. They have little to do with language in the general sense.

Of course, Bubba. I know that. But in the face of a definitive statement that words are "always" culturally derived I chose to show that that is not true.

[jkdesq]

Freedomlover,

Good grief. Can't you even try to give us your view of where words come from. I have asked and your answer was "protactinium". For one thing your answer doesn't even suggest where the meaning of "protactium" comes from to say nothing of words generally. Hardly a responsive answer. You are now being extremely evasive.

The question has been asked three or more times: WHERE DO YOU THINK THE DEFINITION OF WORDS COME FROM? You have not provided an answer. There is now a reasonable presumption that you cannot give us an answer. Rebut the presumption, if you can.

Kilt Nave,

As to a marine's blouse, already discussed way back. Yes, I didn't know that soldiers and airman wear "blouses". Who would have thought. Apparently male peasants wear "blouses" too. The point still remains: a man's shirt (in the business suit sense) is not a blouse and no one would think to call it a blouse; this is the case despite a woman's blouse and a man's shirt being made out of the same or similar materials and being more or less the same in shape and function.

For that matter, despite a soldier or airmans blouse being very similar in material, shape and function to a male civilian's shirt, no one would call the shirt a blouse. Apparently the precise function of a garment can determine whether it is a "blouse" or a "shirt" or a "kilt" or a "skirt". The shape is not solely determinitive. Teleology/ontology/dontology? Which is which. Should we move from semantics into metaphysics?

[kiltedpride]

As to a marine's blouse, already discussed way back. Yes, I didn't know that soldiers and airman wear "blouses". Who would have thought. Apparently male peasants wear "blouses" too. The point still remains: a man's shirt (in the business suit sense) is not a blouse and no one would think to call it a blouse; this is the case despite a woman's blouse and a man's shirt being made out of the same or similar materials and being more or less the same in shape and function.

Now ladies calm down. def of Blouse : "A blouse most commonly refers to a woman's shirt, although the term is also used for some men's military uniform shirts."

[Freedomlover]

Good grief. Can't you even try to give us your view of where words come from. I have asked and your answer was "protactinium". For one thing your answer doesn't even suggest where the meaning of "protactium" comes from to say nothing of words generally. Hardly a responsive answer. You are now being extremely evasive.

You said "always". I proved you wrong. The problem is that you seem to generalize based on you belief that words can mean anything the user desires. You also said that a blouse was a female garment. That was wrong. You said that slacks are a female garment. That was wrong. You think that "cow" is strictly gender based. That was wrong. I have no interest in playing your game since any answer I give will be rejected if it doesn't suit your perception.

The question has been asked three or more times: WHERE DO YOU THINK THE DEFINITION OF WORDS COME FROM? You have not provided an answer. There is now a reasonable presumption that you cannot give us an answer. Rebut the presumption, if you can.

If you want to converse with me then you need to be waaaaay more specific than you have been so far. How about an admission that your assertion that words are "ALWAYS" culturally derived was wrong? You can not continue to make factural errors and expect them to be ignored.

Consider this: my conclusion that kilts are in fact skirts can be easily arrived at by either induction or deduction. I am sorry that you don't like it, but I am not going to wander into your social relativism quagmire.

Why don't you just declare victory and be done with it?