What is your definition of...?

[icehorse]

I've seen several posts here asking how someone is defining a term, particularly in threads where people are talking past each other.

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word? Do we not have words and corresponding agreed-upon dictionary definitions so we can comprehend what one another is saying? How are we to come to a consensus on a particular topic when we cannot even agree how to define a word?

So spot on. Hence my quote from Confucius.

 

[Deidre]

Good topic, I sometimes wonder if people struggled with these things say 100 years ago...1000 years ago?

 

[Augustus]

Good topic, I sometimes wonder if people struggled with these things say 100 years ago...1000 years ago?

Yes, the battle over language has always been a thing, although since the advent of mass media the issue has been exacerbated.


Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

Politics and the English Language - George Orwell (1946)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

At what point did it become acceptable for everyone to have their own personalized definition of a word?

We are all free to define words as we see fit. Language is dynamic, and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning that they tell us how words are being used, not how they must be used.

But we ought only to do so to improve communication. Sometimes, existing language is insufficient for our present purpose. If there is no word for what we mean, assign a word to that meaning, define what you mean by it, and then use it that way. That is all that is required to communicate effectively.

I do this frequently. I just did recently. I wasn't satisfied with just the microscopic and macroscopic scales - I needed three - so I coined a new word, normoscopic to refer to the scale of unaided experience and daily life sandwiched between the scale of the extremely large and the extremely small, and defined and used it (context here if interested).

Do you object to that? If so, why?

I think that I enhanced communication that way. Do you disagree?

 

[SalixIncendium]

We are all free to define words as we see fit. Language is dynamic, and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning that they tell us how words are being used, not how they must be used.

But we ought only to do so to improve communication. Sometimes, existing language is insufficient for our present purpose. If there is no word for what we mean, assign a word to that meaning, define what you mean by it, and then use it that way. That is all that is required to communicate effectively.

I do this frequently. I just did recently. I wasn't satisfied with just the microscopic and macroscopic scales - I needed three - so I coined a new word, normoscopic to refer to the scale of unaided experience and daily life sandwiched between the scale of the extremely large and the extremely small, and defined and used it (context here if interested).

Do you object to that? If so, why?

I think that I enhanced communication that way. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree with creating a word to communicate something an existing word does not. In fact, I'm a proponent of that. Where I take issue is when people manipulate or downright change the definition of an existing word. For example, how do you define microscopic? Probably the same way I do, so small as to only be clearly visible with a microscope. But then someone else comes along and says their definition of microscopic is anything that can be seen under a microscope. This is obviously not the same subset of items that fell under the accepted definition.

Probably not the best analogy, but I'm hoping you understand my point.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't disagree with creating a word to communicate something an existing word does not. In fact, I'm a proponent of that. Where I take issue is when people manipulate or downright change the definition of an existing word. For example, how do you define microscopic? Probably the same way I do, so small as to only be clearly visible with a microscope. But then someone else comes along and says their definition of microscopic is anything that can be seen under a microscope. This is obviously not the same subset of items that fell under the accepted definition.

Probably not the best analogy, but I'm hoping you understand my point.

I think I understand you.

It's perfectly OK with me if a user of the word microscopic has his own variation of what the word means as long as he is clear what *he* means when he uses it.

My point is that I don't mind ad hoc definitions. They are only necessary when the idea you have in mind isn't already captured by standard language, and one prefers to use a preexisting word or phrase to capture this new meaning rather than create a new one. If he is clear about what he means, he is communicating well.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think I understand you.

It's perfectly OK with me if a user of the word microscopic has his own variation of what the word means as long as he is clear what *he* means when he uses it.

My point is that I don't mind ad hoc definitions. They are only necessary when the idea you have in mind isn't already captured by standard language, and one prefers to use a preexisting word or phrase to capture this new meaning rather than create a new one. If he is clear about what he means, he is communicating well.

The issue I see with use of ad hoc definitions is that more often than not, the author does not make clear his/her personalized meaning before using the term, as is evidenced in this very forum.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The issue I see with use of ad hoc definitions is that more often than not, the author does not make clear his/her personalized meaning before using the term, as is evidenced in this very forum.

Somebody that creates a special meaning for a term and doesn't explain how he is using it will probably be misunderstood. The problem in that case is not the use of a custom definition, but the failure to identify it as such. I don't see a big problem there. If the two interlocutors are sincere and being constructive, they will eventually discover the problem and can correct it with a belated definition.

My biggest definition issues for me is what people mean by "God" and "a God."

By "God," I assume that they mean the particular god that they believe in, but who knows what that is, even when you know their declared faith. The variation among the Christians is tremendous, and I really have no idea what the people identifying with what to me are exotic religions are thinking.

Reference to "a God" rather than "God" or "a god" is even more ambiguous.

A minor but related digression: The use of non-standard abbreviations not earlier defined. Generally, when I hit one in a post, I stop reading. I'd have to be intrigued by what had come before to bother to Google the abbreviation and try to figure out what the poster meant.