 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST Date: 20 Jan 05 - 03:08 PM "I just don't feel it is worth my time past giving an opinion that will, and obviously does, have more impact on you than yours seems to have on me." why would anyone give any credence to anything a sef-important moron like this would spew? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Amos Date: 20 Jan 05 - 03:08 PM Martin: It is clear you feel you owe no-one any explanations. That's your business. But why is is it, I would like to know, that you obviously feel strongly that you owe them insults, degrading remarks, and puerile toilet-talk? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Once Famous Date: 20 Jan 05 - 04:03 PM Why don't you stare at the ceiling all night, Amos and ponder it? Better yet, write yourself a big, long thread about it over months that 2 or 3 people occassionally glance at and nod their heads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Jan 05 - 05:03 PM Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: understand... (4) to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something... I'd say Webster's has just got it wrong in this case. If "understanding" is taken to imply sympathy or tolerance, it ceases to be a very useful word in many contexts. Discussing all kinds of important issues would become extremely difficult. In fact, blurring the concept of understanding with that of sympathy is close to being an example of Orwellian Newspeak - a change of meaning which has the effect of excluding "undesirable" types of thought or discourse. Fortunately the dictionary on my shelf is the Concise Oxford Dictionary, and it doesn't include this subsidiary meaning of the word. At least not in my edition. Of course, as language changes dictionaries have to change to take account of these changes. If it is true that in America (where Websters comes from)the word has changed its meaning in this way, that would tie in with some of the examples I have seen where attempts to explain and begin to understand the motives of terrorists have been attacked as verging on treason. ........................... Another linguistic point - I think it is possible that someone may be under the misapprehension that any "rebuttal" has to involve something to do with butts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:52 PM Wolfgang is being manipulatively selective in his quotation from Websters, McGrath. He only cited definition number 4 of the intransitive sense of the word, which is only one of at least 8 options provided. As you and I both know, every time we use a particular word, we are not intending it to mean all of the possible definitions the word may have in the dictionary. Main Entry: un·der·stand Pronunciation: "&n-d&r-'stand Function: verb Inflected Form(s): un·der·stood /-'stud/; -stand·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English understandan, from under + standan to stand transitive senses 1 a : to grasp the meaning of 2 : to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty 3 : to interpret in one of a number of possible ways 4 : to supply in thought as though expressed <"to be married" is commonly understood after the word engaged> intransitive senses 1 : to have understanding : have the power of comprehension 2 : to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something 3 : to believe or infer something to be the case 4 : to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something Websters |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:55 AM Four months on planet Bin Laden (story of a French journalist abducted in Iraq) Wolfgang (p.s. for Carol: In order to show that one particular meaning is possible it suffices to quote the relevant part. No reason to be verbose) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:07 AM Four months on planet Bin Laden (story of a French journalist abducted in Iraq) Wolfgang (p.s. for Carol: In order to show that one particular meaning is possible it suffices to quote the relevant part. No reason to be verbose) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:24 AM Note for Wolfgang: A possible meaning is not necessarily the same thing as an intended meaning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:31 AM Quite. For instance, I understand George Bush's desire to "Americanize" the World...but I do NOT sympathize with it in the least! Nor would I be inclined to tolerate it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Jan 05 - 12:54 PM One meaning of "bad" is "good", and I suppose a comprehensive dictionary definition would need to include that meaning - however in serious discourse that meaning would be set aside, to avoid confusion. It seems to me that the same should be done with any "meaning" of "understand" that suggests that understanding implies support or agreement. "Most people either say that they agree with Bernard Shaw or that they do not understand him. I am the only person who understands him, and I do not agree with him." (Chesterton's introduction to his book "George Bernard Shaw.") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Nerd Date: 21 Jan 05 - 04:20 PM I don't think it's fair to accuse Wolfgang of being manipulative. It is true that "understand" sometimes means what he quoted from Webster's, and as to the "intended meaning," if I remember correctly it was Wolfgang himself who said that he did not understand Hussein's actions. Surely Wolfgang knew what he meant by that? So he was merely clarifying in what sense he found Hussein hard to understand. Remember also that English is not Wolfgang's first language. It may seem a little odd for a native speaker to use the word "understand" in that sense and in that context (generally in that context it would mean "comprehend" rather than "sympathize"), but I think Wolfgang is due great respect given how well he expresses himself in English (better than me sometimes!), and if this is a rare case of an awkward expression creeping in, no one should accuse him of anything untoward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Jan 05 - 05:27 PM I don't think it's fair to accuse Wolfgang of being manipulative. It wouldn't have been fair to do so, and I didn't do so. If I'd been accusing anyone of being manipulatve it would have been whoever put that definition into the dictionary, or rather those who, by using the word in this way may have in some places given it this additional meaning, which is naturally reflected in a dictionary. Wolfgang was clear enough about the distinction involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: goodbar Date: 21 Jan 05 - 05:47 PM don't you know? they sneaked all of their weapons out through syria! ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM I respect Wolfgang's abilities with English right up until the point when he starts correcting those of us whose first language is English about what we mean by what we say. (This is not an uncommon occurance.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Nerd Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:22 PM Again, CarolC, if I am not mistaken it was Wolfgang himself who said he did not understand Saddam Hussein. So he was telling you what HE meant, not what YOU meant. At least that is how I read it. But then, maybe now I am telling Wolfgang what he meant... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: CarolC Date: 22 Jan 05 - 05:52 PM I somehow managed to miss Wolfgang's 19 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM, Nerd, in which all of that is explained. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:55 PM All those posts following my 19 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM post... Three last remarks from me: (1) Thanks for the support and the kind words, Nerd. (2) However, I agree with Carol that there should be no double standard. Corrections to other Mudcatters' posts by me imply that my posts are open to the same level of critique or correction, if I am wrong. (3) I guess it won't surprise you by now, McGrath, but the Concise Oxford Dictionary on my shelf (9th edition, 1996) has the following entry: (I quote only the relevant bit)...be sympathetically aware of the character or nature of... and gives the following sentence as an example of usage: cannot understand him at all which is fairly close to my Hussein's actions are also very hard to understand for me.. The Concise Oxford Thesaurus and Dictionary of Synonyms (1996 too) lists under the second meaning: understand your feelings/position and gives the following synonyms: appreciate, accept,...,sympathize with, empathize with. So it's not only Webster's but also a more recent Oxford. Well, I didn't look into any dictionary before writing 'understand' and I could easily have been wrong (as I often am in English), but I have learned not to trust corrections without checking. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jan 05 - 01:29 PM Thesauruses are a different matter - they are handy ways of finding words which have sort of similar meanings, but sort of similar also means sort of different. And those differences matter. My basic point is that it's very important to hold on the principle that it is always right to try to understand anybody you are in conflict with, and that any notion that trying to understand such people and their actions is a kind of weakness is always to be resisted. And I don't think there's any disagreement about that between Wolfgang and me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq) From: GUEST,heric Date: 24 Jan 05 - 01:44 PM Wolfgang's fourth and rare meaning of "understand" can be easily seen in: "I am just looking for a little understanding." |
