DKL: I am pleased to know that you think my epistemology is half baked. If perhaps you had given a reason for that conclusion, I might have something intelligent to say in response.

If you have more time, pick up Hockberg’s Thought, Fact, and Reference and Kripke’s Naming and Necessity. If you become a student of those, you’ll have a good basis to argue the finer points of meaning with most people.

I don’t think that hyperbole or metaphor makes a difference. Nothing changes when we adjust for that.

Denotation, to use the intensional definition (that you provided), is “the literal meaning or ‘dictionary definition’ of a term.” Now, is a word’s denotation lasting and definite? Sure, often. Denotation does tend to remain stable for a fair amount of time because it has been, by definition, codified for the sake of practicality. Since its parameters are set by codification, it is fair to say that it is definite, practically speaking (as far as language can ever be said to be definite).

However, being “lasting,” “definite,” or “codified” does not privilege denotation over connotation (assuming they are contemporaries) with regard to meaning in any context. Prevailing usage is the only measure of reliable meaning because meaning, in principle, is derived from usage, not from the codification of usage. Clearly, codification can influence usage, and therefore meaning, but ultimately meaning is determined only by usage, by what a given linguistic community accepts.

So, you defended your equivocation of “Creationism” and “creator” with the following (all hyperbole aside):

Ultimately, the most reliable guide to the meaning of a term is its etymology. Connotations come and go, but denotation is [more lasting and definite].

Reading this statement as privileging etymological precedent and the prescriptive use of denotation as more reliable in terms of determining meaning than current, predominant use (in this case, the connotation generally accepted on this thread) is logical and reasonable, especially considering the equivocation that prompted it. I have only submitted that usage is a more reliable guide to meaning than etymology and denotation.

You further explained yourself thus:

(1) As a rule, the most reliable guide to the meaning of any term over time is its etymology. If that were not the case, etymology would be of no practical interest whatsoever.

Later on in our discussion, I believe that we both agreed on the appropriate use of etymology. However, in the context that you made this comment, as a clarification of you previous statement, my opinion is that it doesn’t clarify anything. It only makes your approach to meaning appear more prescriptive.

(2) As a prescriptive matter, radical departures from the etymological semantics of an existing term corrupt the language in a way that impedes all formal usage.

All current language is fluid, even what we call “formal language.” It cannot be corrupted because “purity” is impossible to establish since meaning derives from usage that is continually in flux. Departures in meaning (e.g. by way of connotation) do not, in any way, impede formal usage because “formal” meaning is changed by “formal” usage, not vice versa.

You then continue by stating that connotation often coalesces as some new “shared denotation.” Absolutely, this happens all the time. You follow this by calling the “etymological or constructive origin of the term” the “most reliable guide” to this new denotation. Sure, the most reliable guide to denotation may be how it is codified, but this is a moot point. We have already established (repeatedly) that denotation is not necessarily synonymous with meaning in a given context.

None of this appears to respond to my original criticism (in 71), that you appeared to be justifying your equivocation of current usage through etymology. Your subsequent statistical models address other issues entirely.

Finally, in your most recent comment, you begin with this:

You are wildly misreading a prescriptive position about recommended prospective usage as a descriptive position about what present usage actually is.

And clarify your original position with this:

My actual claim is that if speakers try to prospectively minimize Y where practical to do so, then communications efficiency will be enhanced and confusion will be reduced due to the relative reduction in accidental features Y, many of which are the subject of endless disputes among contemporary speakers.

This is all very well, but it is the first time that you have adequately articulated anything of the sort. I do not believe that your original comment or subsequent clarifications did a very good job of specifying that you are only taking “a prescriptive position about recommended prospective usage.” Rather, I believe I have shown my interpretation of your comments to be quite logical and reasonable.

In conclusion, if you want to go on record now with the argument that I have just quoted, that’s fine, though I don’t think anyone could be blamed for finding it somewhat revisionist. At the very least, if you want to call a straw man, there is ample evidence that you helped to stuff the fellow, if only inadvertently.

However, I really would like to give you the benefit of the doubt on the matter and take this particular clarification at face value, or “seriously” (as you suggest). Why?

1. First of all, I think we can both agree that our professional biases have affected (at least initially) what we have read into each others’ comments, which has resulted in a fair amount of talking past each other.

2. I don’t think either of us disputes the arguments spelled out in our two most recent comments (94 and 100) when accepted on their own terms (clearly, this blanket acceptance doesn’t include aspersions on each other’s intelligence). In other words, we’re basically in agreement now, so why should we keep this up? The only thing that remains to argue about at this point is who deserves the blame for how we arrived at the misunderstanding to begin with. I have tried to explain my perspective in this comment for your convenience, but I am willing to concede that, from your point of view, you might be able to say many of the same things to me. (Besides, if we were to go that route – the blame game, that is – it would never end since, though I make no assumptions about the size of your ego, mine is enormous and would never surrender).

3. I hate myself when I get this confrontational in internet discussions. It is a problem that I recognize in nature that I would really like to eliminate (this is why I usually elect to stay out of things like this). I know I’ve already apologized for some of the disrespect I have shown you (only to get carried away again), but I would like to do so one final time. I respect the relative restraint you have shown in not resorting to the same level of discourse.

4. I’m tired of this anyway, aren’t you? Let’s just agree to end this amicably and call it a day. I can sincerely say that I harbor no hard feelings and hope you’ll continue to comment around here. I’m happy to shake hands and be friends.

You said:

You originally invoked etymology to justify how you choose to interpret a word’s current usage.

Hardly. You are wildly misreading a prescriptive position about recommended prospective usage as a descriptive position about what present usage actually is.

I have never made a claim that what I recommend as the prospective baseline usage of the term creationism actually predominates in real life. This whole discussion is an empirical demonstration that such usage does not predominate.

As I, DKL, and both of these articles have pointed out, etymology does not determine current usage – denotation or connotation. Only acceptance by a linguistic community, i.e. usage, can do that.

Absolutely. Where have I ever argued otherwise?

This is such a slam dunk that anyone marginally educated in linguistics can instinctively see it from the get-go. In fact, it is so obvious that even people with no linguistics training whatsoever can generally comprehend the difference very quickly.

Yes. It is an absolute slam dunk to establish a proposition that no educated person disagrees with. You have been beating a straw man to death.

The semantic model I am defending here is that various time variant usages of a term statistically share common semantic features X and that the use at any given time has additional accidental and unpredictable features Y.

You claim that I claim that X + Y = X for any time t. That is positively ridiculous. My actual claim is that if speakers try to prospectively minimize Y where practical to do so, then communications efficiency will be enhanced and confusion will be reduced due to the relative reduction in accidental features Y, many of which are the subject of endless disputes among contemporary speakers.

I don’t think you would have made this mistake if you took my immediate explanation seriously that my descriptive claim was about X (long run shared features) not X + Y (prevailing contemporary usage, and my prescriptive claim was about the advantages of the prospective minimization of Y. In other words, you have demonstrated an inability to distinguish between claims of what X is, what Y is now, and what Y ideally should be.

In addition, you refuse to believe my immediate insistence that my use of “eternal” was a casual metaphorical reference to X, not X + Y, where I was using time averaged “denotation” as an approximation of X and “connotation” as an approximation of Y. So I guess you can congratulate yourself for disproving ridiculous hypothetical claims that I never made, and which the most casual inquiry would (and did) establish that I never made.

The only thing you have established is that making a man an offender for a metaphor and assuming that the clarification is given in bad faith is a good way to waste time.

If you’re just parodying how pretty much any comment on this thread will result in someone jumping all over you for it (of which I recognize that I am very guilty), then well played.