[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Happy Birthday, Portland!

[gepr at tempusdictum.com]

Jeme A Brelin writes:
 > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
 > > Jeme A Brelin writes:
 > >  > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
 > >  > > Russell Senior writes:
 > >  > >  > Define "love".
 > >  > >
 > >  > > This one will do:
 > >  > > 1.  A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude
 > >  > >     toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of
 > >  > >     attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
 > >  > > 2.  A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with
 > >  > >     whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and
 > >  > >     romance.
 > >  > > 3   a. Sexual passion.
 > >  > >     b. Sexual intercourse.
 > >  > >     c. A love affair.
 > >  > > 4.  An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured
 > >  > >     object.
 > >  > > 5.  A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or
 > >  > >     attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
 > >  > > 6.  An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
 > >  > > 7   a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
 > >  > >     b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest
 > >  > >     love.
 > >  > > 8.  Love Mythology Eros or Cupid.
 > >  > > 9.  often Love Christianity Charity.
 > >  > > 10. Sports A zero score in tennis.
 > >  >
 > >  > [(9) is] the closest to it.
 > >  >
 > >  > To love people is to want the best for them and to do whatever you can to
 > >  > make their lives better.
 > >  >
 > >  > Sometimes this means personal sacrifice and it almost always means a
 > >  > little extra effort.
 > >  >
 > >  > This is what we need to do for all things.
 > >
 > > I disagree.  I think (1-7) are the most frequently used and should be
 > > the primary references for how people use the word.
 > 
 > Woah... it's a real and valid sense of the word.  It is the one that is
 > meant in that context.  You don't mean 3 when you're talking about your
 > mom or your cat (hopefully) and you don't mean 4 when you're talking about
 > your lover (hopefully).
 > 
 > You can't just ignore one of the meanings of the word just because it
 > doesn't fit with your argument.

Well, I'm not.  I'm trying to take a holistic view of what the word
means.  All 10 of these definitions indicate individual, specific,
meanings within a cluster.  That cluster characterizes the sense of
the word.  When someone says "define X", they don't usually mean,
"define it in such a way that we can debate it like lawyers."  What
they usually mean is "how are you using the word."

I don't know what Russell intended when he asked us to define "love."
But, I took his command to mean "how are you using the word 'love.'"

And when I say "I don't love people I don't know."  The sense in which
I'm using the word "love" is _all_10_ of the above specific senses,
which cluster to create the whole concept.

Picking a single one of those out to be _the_ definition of the word
in the sentence "I don't love people I don't know" is misleading.

Not to mention that, since the original sentence was mine, I find it
hard to believe that you know that I meant (9) and not, say (7) when
I wrote that sentence. [grin]

Of course, feel free to tell us that you meant (9) and (9) alone when
you wrote "I understand this is called 'tough love.'"  However, before
you do that, you might notice that 'tough love' has its own entry in
many dictionaries.

 > > "To love people" means "to have an intense emotional attachment to the
 > > concept of 'people'".  It's a generalization and a stereotype just like
 > > any other.
 > 
 > No, it doesn't.  It means, in this context, a charitable feeling toward
 > all individual people.

_Yes_ it does.  In this context, "to love people" means "to have an
intense emotional attachment to the concept of 'people.'

And I can say that this is true beyond a shadow of a doubt because
I'm the one that stated, "I don't love people I don't know." [grin]

 > > I've also seen it used in the sense of "a strong predilection for
 > > _interacting_ with other people".
 > 
 > Not here.  That's not what it means in this context.

Actually, in this context, "love" also means "a strong predilection
for _interacting_ with other people."  Basically, I'm using the
word to mean (1-7) as listed in the dictionary.

I don't love people I don't know.  If you'd prefer, I can be less
ambiguous and do a little phrase substitution to make it easier
to understand.

 > See, with these sorts of things you CAN just pick one of the meanings and
 > leave the others.  That's how words work.

Actually, these specific entries (1-10) do not stand in isolation.
That is _NOT_ how words work.  Words are defined by their usage.
And the particular word "love" is used in those 10 ways as well
as many others.  Words work based on the context of the sentence,
lexicon, and ontology in which they sit.

This is why linguists are so fond of proto-Indo-European roots, which
is "leubh-", by the way.  Those roots indicate a kind of "ball" or
cloud around all the various usages of the words that derive from
them.

_That_ is how words work.  And picking (9) out of the 10 possible
specific definitions and saying that that is the precise way in 
which the word is used in that sentence is silly and very linear.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com