Michael Doelle wrote:
> Lee said:
>
>> Right.  Youi get your definitions from the voices in your head,
>> right?
>
> There's a voice in my head that tells me that you just misread
> another one of my posts.
>
>> Definitions are culture specific, as are dictionsries.  Funny how
>> that works out.<
>
> No, *usage* is culture specific. Nothing funny about it. Nothing
> logical about it either. It just 'happens'.
>
> Have a look at all those entries in dictionaries where it says an
> 'obs.' - as in obsolete - next to the explanation. It does not mean
> that someone in the past came up with an incorrect 'definition'. It
> simply means: this word is not used (much) anymore.
>
> If that process wasn't at work *all* the time, the French and the
> English would all be speaking German today (for some reason you seem
> to be quite fond of this line, so I thought I'd include it here to
> illustrate the point). Of course we'll hear from Bjoern now, who'll
> explain that we'd really just be speaking an obscure Danish dialect.

Definitions, as in the meaning of words, certainly is culture specific and
so are dictionaries.  Flex, tube and a host of other words are not "defined"
the same in Andy's back yard as they are in mine.  Almost none of the words
"defined" in my dictionary are used in your country's primary language at
all.  By the way, definitions change with usage.  That's why they keep
printing new versions of the dictionary.

Bjorn probably will tell us that.  Worse yet, he'll probably be right.

Lee