/me directs vidcc to ... "your having a larf"
However, its a truth that a LOT of people do misunderstand the meaning of that phrase... so i took the opening :P
Printable View
/me directs vidcc to ... "your having a larf"
However, its a truth that a LOT of people do misunderstand the meaning of that phrase... so i took the opening :P
ahemQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Zygote I think.
Lynx has re-invented the English language. He told you that your definition of the word was incorrect, or at least different from the UK version. Rather strangely he then posted 4 definitions, 3 of which agreed with you as I recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
He said that it "simply" meant to deny. However he later said that it could have two meanings, one of which was yours. So the "simply" was at best misleading. In fact no, it was pish.
So he has managed to tell you that you were wrong, then proved you were right. However his own proof appears to have little effect on him.
It's quite fascinating to watch someone lose their grip on Reality (ooer missus) like this.
Shall we see what the concise Oxford has to say on the subject.
Refute - Prove falsity or error of (statement, opinion, argument, person advancing it). Rebut or repel by argument.
So please ignore any suggestion that you used the word incorrectly old bean, whether in the US or the UK.
Gepper was correct, he really meant strongly deny.
JPaul.
Never mind, I can't be bothered trying to teach you English any more. You simply aren't worth wasting my time over.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
I can try to find you a bigger shovel if you want.
Or are you finished making an arse of yourself.
English is an evolving Language, if someone wishes to maintain and use a word according to its original meaning, then they are merely showing their age.
Originally, to refute something required proof.
This has now been replaced by the meaning of "Strongly Deny" in common usage.
Ergo: Your both correct, just a few decades apart in the common usage of the word.
As I stated earlier, i would use the word to strongly deny something. The burden of proof being on the accuser, not the defender on both sides of the Atlantic at present. Unlike at times in the past.
Unfortunatly, although dictionaries often add meanings as they occur, they dont tend to remove them with as much zealous. This is the cause of a lot of arguments that are meaningless.
When such misunderstandings occur, it would be sensable for all parties to use a different word to describe their position.
I choose the word kangaroo, for the aboriginal meaning... because its late and i've confused myself again. :blink:
erm..
I forgot to exclude those words that have a definitive legal definition. :blushing:
However as these definitions change from country to country, i guess it doesnt matter. :P
Flippin heck, my posts are being deleted again.
Quelle surprise.
Surely you mean that is the tyranny of the national courts.. :wacko:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
As Law needs definitive definitions of words occasionally in order to work, im unsure whether i'd call it a tyranny.
It does however sometimes work to move the language apart between countries... however TV, more than makes up for this in bringing the language together; it is quicker and more popular.... often changing the meanings of words by the context and way they are used on an international scale..... Biatch :P