Posted by Tom on October 07, 1999 at 11:41:16:
In Reply to: Another point I was trying to make posted by rpcman on October 06, 1999 at 18:42:25:
Well no. Dictionaries try to represent usage not etymologies. In the vast
majority of cases what English words mean to us their contemporary users, has almost nothing
to do with their etymology. The word "eager" which now refers entirely to an
affective state, orignally referred to a certain kind of a river--one that was inclined to overflow
its banks. Certainly you wouldn't fault Webster's for failing to acknowledge this word's etymology--since
it is extinct. To do so is to succumb to what is called the "root fallacy."
: : Webster's doesn't invent meanings; it merely chronicles them.
: And words change meaning(s) over time. Perhaps the page isn't clear enough, but I was trying to get the point across that I was proposing a somewhat new definition based on where the words started and how they have changed to become used differently today.
: Many people who rightly (again IMO) call themselves atheists *today* merely lack belief in the gods. When dictionaries fail to note this fact and/or instead use the term to mean something disparaging or otherwise go well beyond the etymology of the word then they aren't effectively chronicling the word or how it is or can be used now.