"Ron's is based on the fact that somebody has come along and decided to call their particular music 'folk' or 'traditional' so we can no longer use the term – or, at the very least, we have to define what we mean by what we mean. As far as I can see, Ron's argument makes a nonsense of the language. "

That is not at all what I said.   I am not sure how you came up with that interpretation Jim.

With all due respect Jim, I was trying to account for the "historical" aspects that you stated - "how the those songs were created, transmitted and altered and re-shaped to suit the people who performed them, listened to them and identified with them." IF that "perfectly workable definition" that has existed for some time is accurate, then you should be able to apply it to contemporary music to define "folk".

The arguement that a tradition "dies" simply because of changes in technology, habit, etc. does not hold water. Traditions are constantly evolving and adapting based on the criteria that you stated.

What I was trying to say in my earlier posts is that in order to define "folk" or "traditional" we need to look at the process that creates such songs, the times in which they were created, and how the songs were used. Most people simply disregard contemporary music because it does not fit THEIR definition based on DATED criteria. What bothers me about most of the definitions is that they do not take into account other factors of the individuals and the time period in which they are created.