Galloway's Senate Showdown

[JPaul]

Britannica

Oooh, I duno. Sounds a bit foreign to me, finishing with an 'a' like that.

Have you any thing slightly more British than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I could ask her Majesty.

I know she uses the forum regularly.

[lynx]

Here's Roget's thesaurus entry:

Main Entry: refute
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: discredit
Synonyms: abnegate, argue against, break, burn, burn down, cancel, cancel out, confute, contend, contradict, contravene, convict, counter, crush, debate, demolish, disclaim, disconfirm, dispose of, disprove, dispute, evert, explode, expose, gainsay, invalidate, negate, oppose, overthrow, parry, quash, rebut, reply to, repudiate, shoot down, show up, silence, squelch, tear down, thumbs down, top

Source

Note that most of the alternatives have nothing to do with proof.

The order of entries in a dictionary does not necessarily imply any order of their importance of meaning, particularly where the usage has changed or is changing. In such a case it is often up to the compiler as to which appears first and a traditional listings such as the ones you've quoted will usually put the older (and therefore sometimes the least frequently used) meaning first. I've already said this, but you chose to ignore it. Inconvenient?

Just out of interest, have you some particular reason for trying to prove me wrong. I already explained the misunderstanding to J2 (who is really the only one it should concern) some 70-odd posts back.

Btw, also from the Concise OED:

it is often now used to mean simply ‘deny’.

Did you miss that bit out?

Edit: Oh, and how about retracting the allegation that your Concise OED post was deleted?

[JPaul]

FFS, your using Roget's Thesaurus now.

That really is struggling.

ttfn.

[manker]

I've read the thread now.

I have to say that I wasn't aware of any distinction, at all, between the UK definition of refute and the US definition. After googling for a bit, I'm still not.

It seems to me that the more comprehensive dictionaries rank their definitions for each word in accordance with importance. Others do not, they merely use the word or to suggest interchangability. Examples here and here. Obviously these numbers mean importance as you can easily tell with this simple example - the meanings get more obscure, grammatically technical and infrequently used as you go lower down the list.

In all of the ones I looked at that ranked the importance of the definitions, the necessity of proof was always ranked #1 and the deny option was always at #2. I only searched the UK google pages for dictionaries since that's the only thing in dispute, as I understand it.

I think that primarily to refute means that you have to provide proof. The secondary meaning, as I see it, means to simply deny an accusation. The UK and US dictionaries are in total harmony.



Just to get one thing clear. I talked about linguistics there because I enjoy the subject, I didn't make a post about G.G. because his grandstanding to the world interests me not one jot.

[Rat Faced]

JPaul...

The entry being 1st doesnt mean it is the main use of the word, its the other way around.

An example of a word that has changed drastically, and so can be shown easier is Gay.

gay
adj 1: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer; "a cheery
hello"; "a gay sunny room"; "a sunny smile" [syn: cheery,
sunny]
2: full of or showing high-spirited merriment; "when hearts
were young and gay"; "a poet could not but be gay, in such
a jocund company"- Wordsworth; "the jolly crowd at the
reunion"; "jolly old Saint Nick"; "a jovial old
gentleman"; "have a merry Christmas"; "peals of merry
laughter"; "a mirthful laugh" [syn: jocund, jolly, jovial,
merry, mirthful]
3: given to social pleasures often including dissipation; "led
a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the
ladies"
4: brightly colored and showy; "girls decked out in brave new
dresses"; "brave banners flying"; "`braw' is a Scottish
word"; "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with
gay plumage" [syn: brave, braw]
5: offering fun and gaiety; "a gala ball after the
inauguration"; "a festive (or festal) occasion"; "gay and
exciting night life"; "a merry evening" [syn: gala, festal,
festive, merry]
6: homosexual or arousing homosexual desires [syn: queer, homophile]
n : someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual
attraction to persons of the same sex [syn: homosexual,
homo]

The accepted use of "Gay" these days covers the LAST 2 entries.

The original entry is hardly, if ever, used.

As i said earlier... they add meanings to Dictionaries, they do not remove them when no longer used.

Therefore your evidence appears to suggest; that it used to require proof, however in the more modern usage it is to deny.


/me wonders off again, wondering why people dont just pick another word to describe their position, rather than argue over meanings that are both correct.

[manker]

Therefore your evidence appears to suggest; that it used to require proof, however in the more modern usage it is to deny.

By that rationale, house is now used more as a bingo call or a type of music than it is to describe a domicile.

That definition of gay you found is clearly an exception. Dictionaries add meaning as and when they arise, not when they become more used than the existing defiinition and they do shuffle them when one definition becomes more important than the other - at least they most definitely should. As can be seen here.

The above is clearly not chronological, yet sexual orientation is above happy. Weird, eh.

[JPaul]

Given j2's use, in referring to a legal hearing (the context if you will) then the formal meaning of the word was the more appropriate.

Given j2's use, in referring to a legal hearing (the context if you will) then the meaning which required proof was the more appropriate.

Given the above

Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement. Given that difference in definitions it appeared that you were requiring him to provide proof of his innocence, rather than questioning my use of the word.

was incorrect.

[Rat Faced]

It wasnt a legal hearing, otherwise the committee would have turned up

However i take your point...

I also have to admit though; before this thread i didnt even KNOW that there was a meaning to that word that meant proof was required. Which just goes to show that dumb Geordies are not the masters of the English Language everyone else is.

[JPaul]

It wasnt a legal hearing, otherwise the committee would have turned up

Was it an illegal hearing then

[lynx]

I'm pretty sure it was a legal hearing, he was sworn in. It was also stated afterwards that he would be in serious trouble if it was found that he had lied to the committee, which would not be the case if it was not a legal hearing.

I'd just like to point out that J2 was reflecting my use of the word:

You said he hadn't refuted the charges, I was pointing out that he had.

Consequently it is actually my understanding of the meaning which is more appropriate. My subsequent statement refers to that and is completely valid. It matters not one jot whether the hearing was a legal one or not.