Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40b8ae6d$0$8990$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> I got a perfect match to the meaning of a verb, I don't need
> to find any others offered as alternative meanings for particular
> situations.

The dictionary isn't a 'scratch and win' card. You don't pretend the rest of the meanings of a word suddenly cease to exist just because a particular meaning early on the piece "matches" what you were looking for. What a weird approach to finding out the truth of something that is!

The other meanings are there. They aren't "less perfect" than the first one your eyes alight on. They are all perfectly valid meanings. It means the verb "to sell" is a lot richer in meaning than you care for or find convenient to admit.

> Nope. No6 deals AS AN ALTERNATIVE with "inspire with a desire to buy or
> acquire". You cannot buy or acquire something that is free.

You most certainly can acquire things which are free.

>Therefore
> this simply does not apply.

Why? The verb to sell has a meaning which does not always imply the transfer of cash. Fact. Therefore, I can say someone sells something for free. It sounds daft, perhaps. In this case, it sounds daft *of course*. But then so does the phrase "creative destruction". But on investigation, one discovers that indeed the phrase has meaning or value. I know you don't like it. But there it is.

> > The problem at hand is your claim a phrase is lunacy. It isn't. Your
wrong.
>
> Yes, says you, and I'm not.

Yes says the *dictionary*, Noons. So you are (wrong, that is)!

> > OED No.6 makes the point for me.
>
> It most definitely does not. Submit it to the authors
> of that dictionary or credible linguists and watch
> how far you get. Matter of fact: take this to a
> credible linguistic scholar (preferably not someone
> with an Internet handle of "MSsux" or another similar
> *kewl* phrase) and see how far you get with trying to
> make it pass for something other than utter rubbish.
> Quite frankly, I couldn't be bothered: it's only
> too obvious what the result would be.

Obviously, you will think that way. But since I have done nothing but substitute in phrases for other phrases, each of which is permitted by the full panoply of dictionary definitions, I think you're wrong. If you happen to know of a an expert in semantics (this is a job for semantics, not linguistics) then I am happy to submit to their judgement. But you don't (I presume). And I certainly don't.

But it's another lovely little ploy you tend to wheel out at moments like these: suggest an appeal to an authority that we know full-well can't practically be made, and meantime claim you know what the outcome of such an appeal would be. Jeez. Why do we bother with courts of appeal in the first place, if the original trial judge can work out in advance what their judgement would be?

> Hasn't it even bothered you that the only use of that
> phrase ANYWHERE in the world is in ONE SINGLE article
> and it has never been repeated anywhere else except as
> an argument in this thread? At a guess as for the why: the
> phrase is SO asinine no one has ever tried to use it again?

What bothers me is you getting so het up over a simple phrase that you lose all sight of the full meaning of words.

Whether it has been used once or one thousand times, is irrelevant. Perhaps we are at one of those weird points of time when phrases and words actually enter the language for the first time. The question then becomes, is it a valid formulation of words?

> > You can't selectively ignore the definitions that don't suit.
>
> You can't selectively pick definitions to suit.

Well don't do it then! That is precisely what you are doing by suggesting that meaning No.1 is the *only* one that is worth looking at, because it "matches" (whatever that is supposed to mean). I allow that the phrase is an apparent contradiction taken on the ordinary meaning of the words used, because it very obviously is. I am, however, also arguing that taking the *full* meaning of the words used, it is a valid and meaningful phrase. I am taking all 6 meanings and saying 'can any of them make sense of this phrase' (and answering in the affirmative). You have stopped after meaning No. 1. So it's you that's being selective, not me.

> No it isn't. It is about an imbecile phrase.
> Which you have feebly attempted to prove correct by attempting to
> discredit my understanding of English given your a-priori knowledge
> that it is not my primary language.

Froth, froth, froth. I have done no such thing, Noons, and you know it.

> And failed multiple times.

That *you* choose not to look at all possible meanings of a word before making your judgements is not ultimately my concern. Hopefully, others won't make that same mistake. And if they don't, then they will see that I haven't failed in my appeal to those full meanings at all.

> By having to invoke successive dictionaries,

I mentioned two. And I only mentioned the second, because you complained that the definitions I'd pulled from the first were "not in any dictionary I've got". Two isn't a succession. But even if it were: the question is, do all the dictionaries agree that one could sell something that is free. And oddly enough, they all do. I had hoped to sell you on that idea. Of course.

>pulling in "wide use"
> proofs that were shown wrong

You must be referring to a different thread. You showed nothing, Noons. You made repeated errors in correctly describing what I'd written, but apart from that, the declension of the phrase I offered has never once been actually shown to be wrong by you. Not once.

>, claiming incorrectly that I used the wrong
> word as an adjective in an attempt to discredit my argumentation, etcetc.

Your argumentation consists of saying "If I take the first meaning of the verb "to sell", and pretend that none of the others exist, then I am correct and the phrase is meaningless". I don't need to do anything to show the huge gaping logic hole in the middle of that bit of argumentation, because it is utterly self evident.

An in-passing and intended-light-hearted reference to the fact that you used an adjectival form of a word that is indeed far more commonly used as a noun has nothing to do with that fundamental flaw in your argumentation. Did I know it was a valid adjective? No, I didn't. Should that tell you something such as 'native English speakers don't seem to use it adjectivally very often'? Possibly. But in any case: the suggested correction wasn't made in an unpleasant spirit, played no part in the reasoning of my post, and was not a central plank of *my* argumentation. So please don't suggest it did. Because that would be untrue.

> In other words, an exercise in futile semantics.

I love the way semantics gets used as a pejorative, when actually all it is, is the study of the meaning of words.

Now I am sure you find it futile, since your approach appears to be to "find a match" in the dictionary, rather than to use the dictionary to find out what words actually mean. And having won the argument in your own head, I am sure you find it tedious and futile to have to keep justifying it outside of that environment. But that's just you, Noons.

>Funny during a
> weekend.

What's hilarious is that you started it by saying a phrase has no meaning. And now you call the study of the meaning of words useless and frivilous. What's not so funny is that you you appear to be getting incredibly worked up over the matter, and quite unpleasant about it whilst doing so, and not just with me in this particular branch of the thread. So this really is it this time. I promise faithfully to reply no more, whatever you type next.

HJR Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 19:28:29 CDT