[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long)

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 148254

On 16 Feb 2006 at 17:34, kkersey_austin wrote:

Elisabet:

> My points being: 1) Dictionaries respond to changes in usage; 2)
> generally they do so slowly; 3) the dictionary definition derives its
> authority from its ability to conform to usage, not the other way
> around. In short, I'm with the descriptivists. 

Shaun:

So am I, in general. And normally I wouldn't bring a dictionary 
into the discussion, unless there was a need to define a word 
people really didn't know. But in this case, other people have 
brought dictionaries into the discussion, and I think that some of 
the definitions given in those dictionaries are *way* too loose. 
Many modern dictionaries seem to try to put in 'simple definition' 
of a word because they are trying to a broad market that includes 
people with relatively poor literacy skills, or who are trying to 
use a dictionary to look up words in their second language. Older 
dictionaries, generally catered to a market that was better able to 
handle complex and precise definitions and didn't feel this need.

My point is that just because a definition is listed in a 
dictionary that doesn't make it precise. A large number of modern 
dictionaries seem to act almost as if they are thesauruses as well 
- as if synonym means equality of meaning rather than similarity of 
meaning.

With regards to definitions of sadism, I think a definition that 
gets down to the level of saying 'sadism' means 'extreme cruelty' 
is such a definition. It's so broad as to be meaningless in terms 
of using the word properly, though it's a useful definition for 
somebody who encounters a word they have never seen before and need 
a quick and dirty understanding so they can get on with reading 
something.

Useage does determine meaning. But taken to extremes, that leads to 
Humpty Dumpty English - "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, 
in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, 
neither more nor less.'" And that renders language useless.

Words can still be misused. And in my view, I really do believe 
that when people use the word sadism to merely refer to cruelty (or 
even extreme cruelty) they are misusing that word. Maybe in another 
twenty years or so, language will have changed to the extent that 
sadism is just another word for cruelty, but I don't believe it's 
happened yet, even if some people are using it that way. Even in a 
world where useage does dictate language, misuse can still occur. 
They may as well use the word cruelty. One of the great strengths 
of English is that we do have so many synonyms in our language - 
words with similar meanings, but which differ in nuance. And while 
it might be unreasonable to expect the average person in the street 
to always get the nuance right, when you're discussing a novel or a 
series of books in detail, the nuances are often significant.
 
> Much as I love the OED, it's a great place to start, not always a
> great place to end your research. And as Michael Quinion noted, it is
> not a "tablet of law", particularly for current usage. The chief
> editor himslef explicitly cautions against the myth of the dictionary
> being the final arbiter of "proper English" in the preface to the
> Third Edition. [2]
> 
> In a previous post, you insisted that the "precise" definition of
> sadism requires that the perpetrator experience some degree of sexual
> pleasure - well, sure, I'll grant you that *if* the word is being used
> in a psychiatric context. But it wasn't. It was being used in
> colloquial conversation by a writer with no medical training that I've
> ever heard of. And come to think of it - to be more *precise*, she
> didn't use the word "sadism", she used the word "sadist".

Elisabet:
 
> So, once again, the OED definition of "sadist":  "...more generally,
> someone who derives satisfaction from inflicting pain or asserting his
> or her power over others." 
> 
> Satisfaction? Sounds like Snape to me, on any number of occasions. 

Shaun:

And as I've said a number of times, that doesn't sound like Snape 
to me. I don't see real evidence that Snape derives satisfaction 
from inflicting pain. But I think I can understand why others see 
that, and if so, then yes, they are using the word 'sadist' 
correctly. Bringing up definitions though, in my case, wasn't meant 
to address that idea. I don't have a problem with that definition 
(I just don't believe it applies). It's just that somebody has 
presented a dictionary definition that merely says 'extreme 
cruelty' - and that's a definition I do have a problem with. It's 
just too broad to be meaningful.

> Now I'm going to veer off-course and bring up the way JKR used a
> certain word in a book, as opposed to an off-the-cuff interview remark. 
> 
> Despite Arthur Levine's dictionary-citation defense [3], I still have
> a problem with "fug" being left on a window in HBP Ch3. "Fog" would
> work fine in that sense, but has "fug" *ever* been used anywhere else
> to mean condensed vapor? Not saying it hasn't, but as far as I can
> tell, e.g. by searching on news.google, it is always used to described
> a close, smokey or stinky atmosphere - e.g. that of a smoke-filled
> tavern. It's a great word, but surely there was a better place to use
> it - perhaps at the Hogshead. 
> 
> Incidentally, the OED definition of "fug" is "A thick, close, stuffy
> atmosphere, esp. that of a room overcrowded and with little or no
> ventilation", and alternatively indoor football. No citations come
> close to using it to refer to anything that could form on a window,
> but then, there's no mention at all of the widespread usage of the
> word as a euphemism for - well, I'm sure most of you can figure that
> one out.  ;-)

Shaun:

Actually, I think that's because that 'most widespread usage of the 
word' is actually considered to be a obfuscation mispronunciation, 
rather than a euphemism (and I'm also surprised at the  idea that 
it's the most widespread useage - maybe where you live it is, but 
I've actually *never* heard that useage at all, and only 
encountered it in reading in the last couple of years.

I also assumed that JKR's use of fug in referring to the window was 
intentional descriptive metaphorical use, rather than a misuse of 
the word.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia