Re: extremely pernicious homonymy

On May 16, 5:55 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 16, 12:37 am, mb <azyth...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On May 15, 8:14 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 15, 8:53 pm, mb <azyth...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 15, 4:57 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 15, 2:26 pm, mb <azyth...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Wrongity wrong. To restate the sentence above that you don't seem to
answer, it is its *common-or-garden-name in English and a number of
other Western languages*, no matter the speaker's religious and other
hangups.

Yo know awfully little about English for someone who presumes to
pronounce on it.

Trying to drown the discussion in general statements won't work. It is
obvious that I am not a native speaker of English and that questions
about generally understood terms in standard English need a consensus
(excluding if possible people with an axe to grind, like you in this
particular case). There is one specific question which you are
constantly evading, viz if the common, non-theologian street-English
designation is or isn't "Old Testament". You are not asked about your
tribal sensitivities or the appropriateness of specialized jargon
terms among theologians of all stripes.
...

Not being a Semitist or a priest, I will insist in not understanding
any of the above words that are not part of everyday, non-trade-
jargon, non-inside-group-jargon English. Keep them for some other
time.

This isn't a good place to parade your ignorance and ennui.

I can only repeat the last sentence by leaving it in the quoted text:

Trying to deviate the discussion
is not a very good idea.

Ranjit explained it perfectly clearly. If there's no new testament,
then there is no Old Testament.

From which one can deduce
Daniels' Basic Laws of Language:
Language usage must follow strict logic (his own). General usage by
millions of speakers is not valid if not conform to the wishes of some
PC in-group and Daniels' ex post facto logic.

Continue to pretend you can't read simple, clear statements or
questions.

It's got nothing to do with "language usage," you cretinous bigot.
It's got to do with common courtesy.- Hide quoted text

1. Of course it has explicitly to do with common usage, explicitly
excluding tribal sensitivities and in-group usage

2."common courtesy" has only now been injected into it, after 100
posts. After the failure of your continuous bullshitting, including
that of "logic".

3. Even then, "common courtesy" is a concept regarding language usage
only among a limited, especially mealy-mouthed population. A large
part of the people don't belong to the PC crowd, so where do you get
off playing the dictator with your "common courtesy"?

4. As for "bigot", this is the third heavy libel by your good self in
this thread (you ignored the request to document the 2 others -
"common courtesy" my ass). I'll only observe that the one suspect of
religious or religion-related or tribal fanaticism, trying to dictate
new language usage norms to the population at large is not me (I don't
doubt that you will also try to redefine "bigot")
.

Quantcast