Posted: Mar 21, 2014 9:29 am
by hackenslash
seeker wrote:Well, that's your assumption,


Not an assumption.

and that's not what I've said. All I've said is that I'm interested in knowing the linguists's conventional usages and definitions.


Why? You don't go to a linguist for definitions any more than you go to a plumber for brain surgery. Semantics is a philosophical discipline.

I don't have your a priori trust in philosophers, nor your a priori distrust in linguists.


I have neither trust in philosophers nor distrust in linguists, but semantics is a philosophical discipline, not a linguistic one.

Of course, Aggripina can do whatever she wants within the FUA. But so do I. And what I can do within the FUA includes asking whatever I want (even if Aggripina doesn't like my question) and requesting her not adding irrelevant noise to my thread (even if you don't like my request).


Well here's me not liking your request.

Anyway, it's not a matter of "dictating the terms of discourse".


Bollocks. That's exactly what you were trying to do.

The OP determines what is on-topic and off-topic within each thread.


No it doesn't. Discussion determines what is on or off topic within a thread.

This thread is about "how do linguists define and use these terms". The OP is clear about this. If Aggripina's posts don't engage this issue, then they will be off-topic within this thread (even if they are valuable by any other standards).


Her posts have engaged the issue, by pointing out that it's a malformed question. It isn't a question about linguistics, but semantics. Of course many linguists will deal in semantics, but linguistics isn't a place for definitions, because semantics is a philosophical discipline.

You're braking up entirely the wrong tree.