Re: open letter to the Google company, on the value of the scientific groups

In article <7j1o86F33j1j9U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

António Marques wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
António Marques wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
António Marques wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
It doesn't contradict what he said, which is correct and already
part of
my own explanation so isn't really making a point by repeating. It
addresses his persistent pretense that the history of the word STARTS
with the shape of the moon and that therefore the development of the
name of the bread product is transparent. He seems to have a demon in
his skull that blanks out his sight every time he gets to a part
of my
explanation that includes the word "growing" or "growth", which is
the
*ultimate* source of the words "croissant" and "crescent", and
which are
the whole point of my use of those words as an example of a
non-transparent semantic shift.

Because your example is complex, and not at all good for english:

1 - In fr, croissant means growing
2 - In fr, the waxing moon is called croissant because it's growing
3 - In fr, croissants are callec croissants because they look like the
waxing moon

1->2 is transparent and 2->3 is even more so. What you're pointing out
is that 1->3 isn't. But it happens that no one relies on 1->3, because
2 is always present, so the question whether 1->3 is transparent or
not doesn't even arise.

How is this different from the "footage" example? In both cases, each
step is transparent, but in the end, the connection from beginning to
end is not. Someone raised on video looking at the word "footage" today
wouldn't find the connection with the lower appendage of the human body
transparent. Likewise, a Frenchman eating a croissant today is not
likely to make the connection between the thing he's eating and
"growing";

But the issue is not video ~ appendage vs pastry ~ growing. Those are
equally opaque. The issue is video ~ measurement unit vs pastry ~
waxing moon. The former is opaque, the latter is not.

In what sense of the word "opaque" is pastry - growing (not waxing moon,
*growing*) any less opaque than video - measurement unit?

??? I just said pastry ~ growing is AS opaque as video ~ appendage (so
it stands to reason that it's even more opaque than video ~ measurement
unit), BUT what makes the difference is video ~ measurement unit vs
pastry ~ waxing moon (for both the 2nd step). Why do you compare the 1st
step of footage with the 2nd step of croissant?

Why does every illustration of a phenomenon that occurs in stages have
to cover the same number of stages. Alternatively, why is the video -
appendage connection not a valid illustration of the concept being
discussed? Going back to video - appendage vs. pastry - growing, which
you and I agree are equally opaque: Can you please explain to me why
that is not "the issue"? As far as I had understood it, the issue was
semantic shift, not semantic-shift-in-two-steps-no-more-no-less.

I'm as baffled as you are Harlan. The group this past week has really
been extra-insane, and oddly, most of the insanity has been coming
from people who ordinarily know better.

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/
.

Relevant Pages