Dictionary Word of the Day is wrong
Posted 11 June 2015 - 01:57 PM
Ok. No, it's not. It is a euphemistic shortening of "God's blood" based on Christian emphasis on the blood of Jesus. Interestingly, however, the site has the correct definition: http://dictionary.re.../browse/'sblood
It's just our little widget is wrong. Why?
Een Draght Mackt Maght
Posted 11 June 2015 - 02:09 PM
Most likely the apostrophe in the definition somehow shorted out the widget, and it lost everything that came after?
Pete Seeger's life was a picture of an idea in flight, and the idea will continue long after. As long as there are people with goodness and courage in their hearts, the idea will continue forever.
Check out my music threads:
Beautiful Music: Folk, Acoustic, Traditional, and World
A Celebration of Song Lyrics, New and Old: Just the poetry (to include those with different musical tastes than me)
When Sci Fi Actors Sing
Posted 11 June 2015 - 06:36 PM
The once and future Nonny
"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting? I found this with no attribution.
Fatal miscarriages are forever.
Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice. Suzanne Brockmann
All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot
Posted 12 June 2015 - 12:28 AM
However, as a past National Spelling Bee contestant, I can tell you to surrender all hope. I've been arguing with dictionaries for over 40 years -- there are entire LINES of dictionaries that I reject outright. Etymologies, in particular, are little more than educated folk wisdom, however credible the source -- e.g. Countless neologisms never catch on, or catch on decades to centuries after their first coining, when they finally resonate with the Zeitgeist. I've long argued that some resurgences in popularity are actually new originations that 'hit a new nerve' unrelated to their first bloom.
In short, the very ideas of 'when a word started' or 'what it originally meant' may be meaningless. It may not even make sense to ask those questions over a historical timespan; words are USED as contemporary constructs only as evocative (or not) as they were in the mind of the user. "Bloody", for example [born of the same theological/sacrilegious vein -- if you'll pardon the pun] has been a "cartoon swear word" in the US all my life -- suitable for use around the smallest toddler [The "hell" in "bloody 'ell" was the real curseword in Georgia when I was born, but has been effectively G-rated for decades] I'm aware that many of our Commonwealth members [clarification: "British Commonwealth", not "Systems Commonwealth"] still read it as a stronger curse, or at least recall when it was, even the younger ones.
Don't get me wrong. I love etymology and find it instructive. I just believe less in individual etymologies (and the notion of modern etymology at all) with each passing decade. Words are not as concrete as we often like to think they are.
Posted 12 June 2015 - 02:19 AM
However, even though the oral tradition long preceded the written word and standardised spelling, my leaning, where the English language is concerned, is nevertheless towards traditional English grammar, simply because the language itself received the very refinements that were necessary to education (the first university emerged some 400+ years ago), particularly in the sciences, mathematics, and most importantly, Logic, which is the foundation of the sciences, mathematics, Law, and in good part in politics. Precision in language is therefore directly related to the cohesive nature of modern society plus law plus the sciences plus modern business.
Conversely, the lack of precision in language leads in part to the situation you presently have in the United States, with the decline in public participation and interest in politics, the decline of education, the importing of skilled workers, mathematicians, scientists, and other experts in any number of fields, by virtue of the simple fact that the people its producing are functionally illiterate (able to read 'n' rite but don't know how the language or anything else woiks). They've even gone so far as to try to change the definition of "functionally illiterate" in a misguided attempt to try to make the situation not look so bad.
I quit teaching back in the 70's because of my disgust with the way things were deteriorating back then. It's far worse today because the chuckleheaded louts I went to university with produced a generation of even more chuckleheaded louts, and now a third, more inept version is taking heat across the board for their students' failing grades.
In fact, it was my generation that tried or at least wanted to get rid of the grading system.
As a music composition major all my life, I could have told them as a teenager that organisation is a bulwark against chaos.
Edited by gsmonks, 12 June 2015 - 02:20 AM.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users