Kilt, Skirt, MUG, etc.

[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?

[jkdesq]

Freedomlover,

Sure "always" was a reckless word to use. I admit it. But within our little mountain out of a mole hill, your taking far, far too much advantage from that small error. Please note that the word "always" was not used in at least the last two postings that contained my question.

Just answer the question: WHERE DO YOU THINK THE DEFINITION OF WORDS COME FROM? Would it help if we rephrase: where do you think the definitions of common English words come from? How about: Generally, the definitions of common English words come from [blank]? The fact that you call my statement (to the effect that the meaning of English words comes from a cultural consensus) a "quagmire of social relativism" makes me very, very curious to get the answer. Absent une academie anglaise, a committee of the House of Lords or Congressional committee, I'm at a lost to know what the source is. Is it the Masons? Her Majesty the Queen?

Can I ask a Moderator to direct that the member answer the question? LOL

[Freedomlover]

Freedomlover,

Sure "always" was a reckless word to use. I admit it. But within our little mountain out of a mole hill, your taking far, far too much advantage from that small error. Please note that the word "always" was not used in at least the last two postings that contained my question.

I hope you don't think I'm picking on the little things. There is a very good reason why I went that way. Language should be used with care lest the speaker convey something he didn't intend, and put the hearer in the position of having to interpret what the speaker may have actually meant. Please understand that everyone gets a little reckless with language now and then (well, maybe William Safire doesn't), but in a discussion of this type precision is crucial.

Just answer the question: WHERE DO YOU THINK THE DEFINITION OF WORDS COME FROM? Would it help if we rephrase: where do you think the definitions of common English words come from? How about: Generally, The fact that you call my statement that the meaning of English words comes from a cultural consensus a "quagmire of social relativism" makes me very where do you think the definitions of common English words come from?

I will surprise you. I think the definition of common English words comes from a consensus opinion. We agree on what a word means, then that is how we use it. But that does not convey any individual right to re-define any given word because of personal notions. Word usages obviously do change over time, but that change is usually gradual, taking generations to evolve. There are exceptions, of course.

My remark about "social relativism", was rooted in your insistance that "skirt" is exclusively female, and therefore you reject out of hand the currently accepted dictionary definition that a kilt is a man's skirt. You cited your desk OED which said "skirtlike" as your reason for rejection. But have you considered what the suffix "like" means? Here it is: "possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to". You have made a distinction without a difference.

My only purpose has been, from the beginning, to address a matter of fact. I do not refer to my kilts as skirts (even though they are), nor do I expect anyone else to. Recognition of plain facts is all I'm after.

Can I ask a Moderator to direct that the member answer the question? LOL

I'm sure you can, but you will find out that no one here is under any compulsion to reply to a post. Participation is voluntary.

[Dreadbelly]

May I be excused? I believe my brain is full. *Urp*

Seriously. All these posts, and nothing is actually being said.

Except for the blouse bit. A Jacobite shirt, by definition of design, is actually a blouse. And it's a male garment.

And what about hose? You say that, and people think, women's hosery. Panty hose. FEMININE! And yet... We skirt wearing men also wear blouses and hose...

Sorry. This thread stopped being productive a long time ago. I was just manning the bellows to get some flames going.

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

May I be excused? I believe my brain is full. *Urp*

Seriously. All these posts, and nothing is actually being said.

Except for the blouse bit. A Jacobite shirt, by definition of design, is actually a blouse. And it's a male garment.

And what about hose? You say that, and people think, women's hosery. Panty hose. FEMININE! And yet... We skirt wearing men also wear blouses and hose...

Sorry. This thread stopped being productive a long time ago. I was just manning the bellows to get some flames going.

Dread, I think that is the only reason to read this thread anymore, and I started it! I admit my goal was to drive some lively debate, but between more than 2 participants sniping at each other and the rest of us going wondering what the big deal was. The only reason I see to continue this thread now is to break the number of posts and reviews! I thought I saw on a thread that the longest on Xmarks was 168, we have to be getting close at this point.

[jkdesq]

One step forward and two steps back. Quit being evasive.

I have never said that I could redefine the word "kilt" or "skirt". My understanding that a "skirt" is a woman's garment comes from several source, which include: i) my OED that defines a skirt as "a woman's outergarment hanging from the waist" combined with the definition of kilt as "skirtlike" and not a "skirt"; ii) my understanding (as a nearly bilingual anglophone Canadian, who has an undergraduate and post-graduate degree and has traveled extensively through Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and East Asia) that when a typical English speaker says "skirt" they mean a garment intended for woman. The fact that when an English speaker calls a man's kilt a "skirt" they usually mean to tease or offend, I would say is a point in support of my opinion.

My point all along has been that there is ambiguity in the meaning of English words. There is no way to avoid ambiguity in a "culture consensus". Why do you think the first 1/4 of any legal document is definitions? Unless you are going to conduct a pole of all English speakers and come up with a system of quorum for the number of speakers it takes to lay the foundation of a definition, there is no absolute answer to what a word means. The OED and Websters (and fine, the bargain basement Compact OED weighs in on the Webster's side) disagree so dictionaries aren't the final answer. Are you suggesting that you are the sole English Immortal and can definitively tell me what "skirt" and "kilt" mean?

We are left with ambiguity. From there, individuals can take opinions. Everyone knows mine and yours. Neither are correct, neither are incorrect.

I've been offering a draw for awhile. It is you who keeps looking for the knock out punch and calling my point of view incorrect and "irrational". Can we agree to disagree and to respect each others opinions as rational and reasonable?