Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 8 May 1996 21:45:35 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Raelyn Campbell wrote:
>
> I agree. Why don't the "new" institutions come up with a "new" name for thems
el
> ves, instead of trying to rewrite an understood and accepted meaningful defini
ti
> on of an existing kind of institution?
"The human mind is so complex and things are so tangled up with each
other that, to explain a blade of straw, one would have to take to
pieces an entire universe...a definition is a sack of flour compressed
into a thimble." - Remy de Gourmant
When in doubt,I always pull out the trusty old Websters New
International Dictionary (The Biggg one!), especially when people start
mentioning "definitions."
While it's true that the second definition is "an institution devoted to
the procurement, care, study and display of lasting interest or value",
the first definition is (of all things) "a scholar's library".
The third definition is "a room, building or locale where a collection
of objects is put on exhibition".
It doesn't seem to indicate that this is where the collection is
maintained, but rather where it is "put on exhibition."
Question: When is it appropriate for any group to take a word and
re-define it, asserting claim to the "true" definition?
This is not meant to be a rhetorical or sarcastic question...this
happens all the time in our language; I'm just wondering when convention
dictates that an institution can start claiming "equity" in a word.
Greg Stemm
|
|
|