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