Re: Me, and methodology
Posted by R. Berg on April 02, 2002 In Reply to: R. Berg posted by Jen on
April 02, 2002
: What's wrong, does my explanation make more sense then your
Oxford English Dictionary? You know as well as I do the 2002 edition
doesn't look anything like the 1669 edition. I'm sorry that your
ego is so fragile that it can't take questioning.
Insults don't help--and then there's always "Don't trash the volunteers
who provide a service." I'll try to make my point another way. This
will be the same explanation as before, but in different words.
You (that is, anyone) are free to pick your clothes, your friends,
and the decor for your home by "what feels right." When it comes
to deciding the origin of a word, however, a more scientific mode
of thought is called for, because we're talking about things that
happened. A series of past events. External reality. Once in a while
the OED does get something wrong, but I won't apologize for accepting
their theory of "redskin" over yours. They arrive at their explanations
with the help of old documents that most of us haven't seen.
You're welcome to make a case for the bloody-hands theory of "redskin,"
but imagination--"Well, it could have gone like this"--isn't enough.
You'd have to show some evidence. I didn't make up that requirement;
that's just the way it is when we're talking about the real world.
- About the OED R. Berg 04/02/02
(
4)
|