01-14-2012, 11:51 AM
My only feedback is about the piece with the father and son. Sorry LannisterHater, (big George R. R. Martin fan are you?) that was directed at Ray's comment, not your writing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray,
If you say a word can mean anything, what you do is to make it mean nothing. By necessity a word's definition is limiting: "the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined."
What the writer of the piece thinks it is, has no bearing on the reality of what it is. The piece is defined by what definition it conforms to. Words carry with them generally accepted definitions. This is necessary for any type of communication. If you are unaware of this, I suggest a study of writing prior to Dr. Johnson and his dictionary for clarification. (Should this not suffice, then possibility a foray into linguistics would help.)
When a label is applied to a thing, the thing must conform to the definition carried by the label. An animal is not what the farmer says it is, it has an objective reality outside of individual opinion. A farmer may call a duck a pig, but that does not change the fact that it is in fact a duck. If he chooses the farmer may go argue with the dictionary about what constitutes a duck, and what constitutes a pig, just as you can argue with the dictionary about what constitutes a poem. However, both should realize that the definition arises out of the general usage of the word over a significant period of time. That is, the definition fits how the word has been applied in writing in the past, up to the present point in time. The definitions was not made up ad hoc. The definition is a reflection of the overall common usage of the word.
Just because we are free to do as we choose, or free to say what we choose, does not mean we have the power to change something just because it suits us. Individuals do not have the power to change the definition of a word simply because they take it into their heads to do so, and it is beyond arrogance to think one can. If you have a problem with the definition of the word "poem" I suggest you take it up with the common usage of the word in writing over the past hundred years, since that is what informs the current definition of the word. The word which I used "poem", and whose usage you took acceptation to, was used in accordance with that current accepted definition.
I am quite well verse in dialectic discourse, as well as linguistics, and I understand there are certain things that are not up for debate, one of which is the accepted definitions of words, defined as how they appear in dictionaries. Unless there is a conflict between dictionaries, definitions should be regarded as facts.
I don't argue facts.
In the future, I would ask you to make sure what you are trying to argue is an arguable point, or at least do it with someone else.
"I have other criteria for writing that are much more important to me.
What is and isn't a 'poem' is one of those..."
See above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My apology for wandering off topic.
Dale
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray,
If you say a word can mean anything, what you do is to make it mean nothing. By necessity a word's definition is limiting: "the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined."
What the writer of the piece thinks it is, has no bearing on the reality of what it is. The piece is defined by what definition it conforms to. Words carry with them generally accepted definitions. This is necessary for any type of communication. If you are unaware of this, I suggest a study of writing prior to Dr. Johnson and his dictionary for clarification. (Should this not suffice, then possibility a foray into linguistics would help.)
When a label is applied to a thing, the thing must conform to the definition carried by the label. An animal is not what the farmer says it is, it has an objective reality outside of individual opinion. A farmer may call a duck a pig, but that does not change the fact that it is in fact a duck. If he chooses the farmer may go argue with the dictionary about what constitutes a duck, and what constitutes a pig, just as you can argue with the dictionary about what constitutes a poem. However, both should realize that the definition arises out of the general usage of the word over a significant period of time. That is, the definition fits how the word has been applied in writing in the past, up to the present point in time. The definitions was not made up ad hoc. The definition is a reflection of the overall common usage of the word.
Just because we are free to do as we choose, or free to say what we choose, does not mean we have the power to change something just because it suits us. Individuals do not have the power to change the definition of a word simply because they take it into their heads to do so, and it is beyond arrogance to think one can. If you have a problem with the definition of the word "poem" I suggest you take it up with the common usage of the word in writing over the past hundred years, since that is what informs the current definition of the word. The word which I used "poem", and whose usage you took acceptation to, was used in accordance with that current accepted definition.
I am quite well verse in dialectic discourse, as well as linguistics, and I understand there are certain things that are not up for debate, one of which is the accepted definitions of words, defined as how they appear in dictionaries. Unless there is a conflict between dictionaries, definitions should be regarded as facts.
I don't argue facts.
In the future, I would ask you to make sure what you are trying to argue is an arguable point, or at least do it with someone else.
"I have other criteria for writing that are much more important to me.
What is and isn't a 'poem' is one of those..."
See above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My apology for wandering off topic.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.