Klarinet Archive - Posting 000353.txt from 2004/03

From: "Buckman, Nancy" <nebuckman@------.edu>
Subj: RE: [kl] For Rien
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 20:36:57 -0500

I copied it directly from the net. Because I don't remember exactly =
which site I used, I went out on the web and looked up Webster, Webster =
student, dictionary.com, yourdictionary.com and some others. With the =
exception of the student Webster's, they all say the same thing pretty =
much. The student version did not contain the same-sex explanation.

Nancy

Nancy E. Buckman, CPO, AFO, Technical Assistant
School of Health Professions, Wellness and Physical Education
Anne Arundel Community College
Arnold, MD 21012-1895 USA
Phone 410-777-2316 Fax 410-777-2233
E-mail nebuckman@------.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Hausmann [mailto:bhausmann1@------.net]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 6:34 PM
To: klarinet@------.org
Subject: RE: [kl] For Rien

At 07:23 AM 3/5/2004 -0500, Nancy E. Buckman wrote:
(I wrote:)
Just for the record, from WHAT dictionary do you cite?

(Nancy wrote:)
>Why?

For all we can tell, you made the dictionary entry up out of thin air, =
not=20
that I am accusing you of that. But if you are going to all the trouble =
of=20
quoting, at least state the reference. If it was from the "Official Gay =

Person's Dictionary" or the paperback "Webster" dictionary you get for =
99=20
cents at K-mart or something I might view the definition as somewhat =
less=20
authoritative than if it were the "Oxford English Dictionary." It might =

also be pointed out that dictionaries do not tell us what a word SHOULD=20
mean; only what it has meant in the past. It may also keep abreast of=20
current usage, as yours did. Your dictionary citation included the word =

"marriage" as part of the larger phrase "same-sex marriage" but defined=20
that term separately, so I did not see it as especially supportive of =
your=20
argument.

Bill Hausmann