Gay Marriage

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 02:23
if you've got doubts about the language's suitability to precisely convey your intended meanings, you could try doing what Shakespeare did: just make a whole slew of words up. they (along with your definitions) might gain common acceptance and end up in a dictionary someday. at least there'll be no controversy over what you meant to say.

Then I am a throwback; I've been doing that for years.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to walk my dinosaur.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 04:46
the Canadian Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will soon revise its definition of "marriage" to specify a contract between two "people" rather than man and woman.

unless i can find the Edmonton Journal article, this one from the popular gay magazine The Advocate will have to do.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...84&sd=09/17/03

if this leaves anyone scratching their heads, wondering if it's a propaganda manuever or thinking it's a technical foul... one needs to understand that dictionaries do not hand language down to us and force us to accept it. definitions found in religious texts may be sacred, but there's nothing sacred about a dictionary. a dictionary's purpose is to document words & meanings as they are used by contemporary society... society dictates the content and meanings of its language, and the language dictates what goes into a dictionary.

Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag+28 February 2004 - 23:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag &#064; 28 February 2004 - 23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 04:46
the Canadian Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will soon revise its definition of "marriage" to specify a contract between two "people" rather than man and woman.

unless i can find the Edmonton Journal article, this one from the popular gay magazine The Advocate will have to do.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp...84&sd=09/17/03

if this leaves anyone scratching their heads, wondering if it&#39;s a propaganda manuever or thinking it&#39;s a technical foul... one needs to understand that dictionaries do not hand language down to us and force us to accept it.&nbsp; definitions found in religious texts may be sacred, but there&#39;s nothing sacred about a dictionary.&nbsp; a dictionary&#39;s purpose is to document words & meanings as they are used by contemporary society... society dictates the content and meanings of its language, and the language dictates what goes into a dictionary.&nbsp;

Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?[/b][/quote]
Google it, you thread hi-jacker.

Canadian Oxford

[clocker]

Originally posted by Agrajag@28 February 2004 - 14:51

Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?

Not satisfied with the definitions of "eh" and "hoser" provided by other dictionaries, the Canadians felt it necessary to publish their own, unique tome.

My understanding is that page two is due out soon.....

[MagicNakor]

It&#39;s got far more pages than two. Remember it has to not only explain what a butter tart is, it also has to change Newfie into something vaguely recognisable as English, and do the same with Quebecois.

[clocker]

Ok, I&#39;ll bite.

What is a butter tart?

[MagicNakor]

It&#39;s...a butter tart. I actually didn&#39;t know it wasn&#39;t a widespread food until this year.

They&#39;re usually made around Christmas. They&#39;re filled with a buttery and sugary custard that&#39;s studded with rum-soaked raisins.



There&#39;s a picture.

http://www.pastrywiz.com/archive/buttet.htm is a recipe, although I can&#39;t vouch for it, because I always use my Grandma&#39;s recipe (which is the best one ).

[clocker]

I see.

And this justifies a whole new dictionary?

Wouldn&#39;t an episode of the Iron Chef have sufficed?

[MagicNakor]

Apparently it&#39;s a contentious subject. How sugary, how buttery, how thick, with walnuts, without walnuts, with or without pecans, and so on.

Plus the butter tart is just an example, you jackabaun.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@29 February 2004 - 05:28
Apparently it&#39;s a contentious subject. How sugary, how buttery, how thick, with walnuts, without walnuts, with or without pecans, and so on.

Plus the butter tart is just an example, you jackabaun.

So, are you for gay marriage or against it? Sorry for being dense, but your butter tart analogies are too obtuse for me.