definitions in discussing Harry Potter (was: multiple Snape!)

[Miles]

No: HPFGUIDX 148267

Shaun Hately wrote:
> 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.

Miles:
We had this problem before, and I'm afraid we won't solve it in this case.
The reason is simple: this list mirrors real life ;).
Remember the discussions on the term "child abuse" we had? Some people tried
to introduce correct (that means scientific) definitions of it to show that
there is no child abuse on Snape's side. Some listies simply sticked to
their own "private" definitions of child abuse, some members interpretated
those definitions very wide (IMO incorrectly) to support their opinion that
Snape *is* a child abuser. The discussion ended (or paused) in disagreement.
I agree with you that we should try to use words in a correct way, but I'm
afraid that we neither will come to an agreement about it on this list, nor
that we all would read the same definitions in the same way even if we
agreed on it.

Shaun Hately wrote:
> 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.  <snip>
> 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.

Miles:
You address a general problem not only affecting English, but German as well
(and I suppose most other languages in "our" cultural environment): some
words seem to blur, nuances seem to vanish, simplicity abounds. Maybe this
observation is wrong (like the ancient Greeks who considered the modern
youth worthless), but I think it is partly a result of democratising of
language. There are much more people who actually *write* in public than
only ten years ago - this list is part of the reason: the internet. People
are encouraged to express their thoughts not only privately, they write on
lists, they write blogs, they participate in forums etc. Discussing
literature is not a domain of (more or less) well educated people any more -
so maybe insisting on most exact definitions is a lost battle. Frankly - I
think that some blurred definitions are a fair price for reading those
interesting opinions that noone would have noticed only ten years ago.

Ahm... and I'm afraid there is a special problem in English as well, and I'm
a part of it. English is second or third language for many people, who have
(or like) to write in English - in business, science, and discussions on
literature. Just speaking of myself, it's often difficult for me to find the
word that really matches the nuance I want to express. Although I work with
several dictionaries that mostly offer a long list of meanings (try German
"Bedeutung" here: http://dict.leo.org/) it is almost impossible to always
find the correct word. And I don't think that the problem are the
dictionaries ;).

Miles, apologising for being slightly off topic