4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 223:
Line 223: + +
→Dictionary definitions
::I'm not I'm understanding your point [[User:RobS|RobS]]. The [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html| cite] provided the history of the neologism...Is it your objection that the term was not first coined by an reputable source? What is being given more weight: the '''history''' of the neologism ''or'' the '''source''' of the history? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 14:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not I'm understanding your point [[User:RobS|RobS]]. The [http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html| cite] provided the history of the neologism...Is it your objection that the term was not first coined by an reputable source? What is being given more weight: the '''history''' of the neologism ''or'' the '''source''' of the history? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 14:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:::(I assume RobS's point is that if the dictionaries don't mention that the word was coined by George Weinberg and published in ''Screw'' magazine, the dictionaries probably don't know much about the word and whatever else they have to say about it isn't trustworthy... RobS, is that right?) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dictionary definitions may or may not be correct, but they are ''relevant.'' They are widely accepted as impartial authority. You can certainly say "standard dictonaries are wrong," for thus-and-such reasons, but you shouldn't just ignore them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dictionary definitions may or may not be correct, but they are ''relevant.'' They are widely accepted as impartial authority. You can certainly say "standard dictonaries are wrong," for thus-and-such reasons, but you shouldn't just ignore them. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)