[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: English for everyone?

[GulPlum]

Jen P wrote:

>but someone needs to tell the writer to proofread - he (or she?) says at 
>the end of the article: "indeed, microsoft says that without the internet, 
>the dictionary would have been possible..." when clearly, "wouldn't" was meant.

Not to mention the misuse of "whom": (Arm candy definition): "... whom 
accompanies him to a social event ...".

>besides, i have a quibble with stating that the generally assumed meaning 
>of "ignorant" is "dumb".  is it so in british english?  i always assumed 
>that while an 8-year-old might use it in this way to impress someone he or 
>she is insulting, most people recognize that ignorant has a slightly 
>different meaning.  maybe i'm just naive.

I suppose it depends on the meaning of "dumb". :-) According to my 
(British) printed dictionary (1998 Collins), the first meaning for 
"ignorant" is "uneducated, unenlightened". The third meaning for "dumb" 
(noted as colloquial) is "foolish, uneducated" (the first two are about the 
inability to speak).

Certainly I, as a native speaker of British English, would consider the two 
to be very close in meaning, although dictionary definition aside, I'd use 
"dumb" to refer to someone who is naturally stupid or low in intelligence, 
whilst  I'd use "ignorant" to refer to someone who is not in possession of 
complete information. Nevertheless, my usage of "ignorant" would imply 
absence of quite fundamental knowledge, perhaps due to low intelligence, so 
the rationale has really gone full circle and we're back to "ignorant"="dumb".

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who's wondering if that makes sense.