Suggestion for compromise on Wizard's PDFs

[Wayside]

Just because a thousand people say something, does not mean it is right. I can start calling dogs cats, start a movement, hack your Kindle's and replace every instance of dog with cat, but Fido is still going to bark, he won't meow.

The arbitrariness of the sign is a basic feature of semantics at this level. If everyone starts using "cat" to mean "dog" then "cat" does, in fact, mean "dog." There is nothing to be right or wrong about: words mean what people use and understand them to mean. See the word history of internecine for a famous example:

Word History: When is a mistake not a mistake? In language at least, the answer to this question is "When everyone adopts it," and on rare occasions, "When it's in the dictionary." The word internecine presents a case in point. Today, it usually has the meaning "relating to internal struggle," but in its first recorded use in English, in 1663, it meant "fought to the death." How it got from one sense to another is an interesting story in the history of English. The Latin source of the word, spelled both internecīnus and internecīvus, meant "fought to the death, murderous." It is a derivative of the verb necāre, "to kill." The prefix inter- was here used not in the usual sense "between, mutual" but rather as an intensifier meaning "all the way, to the death." This piece of knowledge was unknown to Samuel Johnson, however, when he was working on his great dictionary in the 18th century. He included internecine in his dictionary but misunderstood the prefix and defined the word as "endeavoring mutual destruction." Johnson was not taken to task for this error. On the contrary, his dictionary was so popular and considered so authoritative that this error became widely adopted as correct usage. The error was further compounded when internecine acquired the sense "relating to internal struggle." This story thus illustrates how dictionaries are often viewed as providing norms and how the ultimate arbiter in language, even for the dictionary itself, is popular usage.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I invite you to get to work colonizing Mars and stop wasting time here when you could be doing that, then

You haven't heard? My Newtonian machines are hard at work doing just that. I expect Mars to be habital just after WOTC rereleases AD&D.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Deleted.

 

[jaerdaph]

*shrugs* At the end of the day, those who can, do, and those who can't, want to copy and captilize on other people's work (either with or without permission).

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I see 'em.

 

[Nikosandros]

*shrugs* At the end of the day, those who can, do, and those who can't, want to copy and captilize on other people's work (either with or without permission).

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I see 'em.

Yes, like Disney copying and capitalizing on the works of people like the Grimm brothers and Collodi and then trying to lock down their own stuff forever...

 

[jaerdaph]

Yes, like Disney copying and capitalizing on the works of people like the Grimm brothers and Collodi and then trying to lock down their own stuff forever...

Exactly. Or Philo Farnsworth, the man who invented television and had his invention stolen from him by some very greedy men at RCA/NBC claiming they had only the public's best interests at heart.