In a message dated 2/2/2005 11:52:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, Steve Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> writes: > >You appear to be contending that if two people disagree, this indicates >that neither is correct. I doubt that is what you mean. I'm not sure >what you mean. Which arguments are correct? Uh...that's why we're >having the argument, because we want to explore that, and perhaps >increase our understanding of a given usage, and language in general. > >Example: I think the broadening of the word "relationship" is damaging, >overall, to language, because it encourages people to think they have >said more than they said, and heard more than they heard. I was going >to write, "...of the relationship to mean..." only I couldn't think of >what it has been broadened to mean. Something to do with sex, only it >might not be sex, or with romance, though romance might not be involved. > >I think this weakens the language. Others disagree with me; they >believe that it is useful to have a word that is vague and nebulous when >speaking of one's lovelife. I have counter arguments. They have >counter arguments to my counter arguments. &c. > >But, you see, I think I'm right. > >More, I contend such arguments are worth having. Because through them >something can be *settled* and *solved*? No. Because through them, >knowledge and understanding can be developed and increased. > > > **dreamy look in eyes** Such a wise man...sigh -C > >