Question #2
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2012, 03:11 PM
RE: Question #2
(29-11-2012 02:33 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  sacred |ˈsākrid|

adjective

connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration: sacred rites | the site at Eleusis is sacred to Demeter.

• religious rather than secular: sacred music.

• (of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion: a sacred Hindu text.

regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion, group, or individual: an animal sacred to Mexican culture.

• sacrosanct: to a police officer nothing is sacred.

DERIVATIVES

sacredly adverb,

sacredness noun

ORIGIN late Middle English: past participle of archaic sacre ‘consecrate,’ from Old French sacrer, from Latin sacrare, from sacer, sacr- ‘holy.’


I stay away from the word altogether because of the religious connotations. But it's perfectly proper to use for a personal, non-religious matter, too. Technically.
Interesting.

Some people look at those definitions and see that fourth definition, the one in red, which lists three objects, the first of which is religion, and they draw the conclusion that they can use this word in a completely non-religious context and everyone who hears or reads their usage will, unfailingly, discern the non-religious usage?

I'm not saying the OP did that - he went out of his way to clarify what his usage was.

Technically it can be used this way. Technically the 4th definition is 2/3 non-religious. Technically I agree with Thinkerbelle.

Realistically, everyone is going to see this word in a religious context; using it as a non-religious word will cause misunderstandings that are the fault of the person who chose the word, not the fault of the person who misunderstood the intent.

Logically, that's a bad idea and defeats the purpose of communication.

I prefer realism and logic to technicalities. Especially when reality provides perfectly logical alternatives that don't rely on technicalities to avoid poor communication.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 03:25 PM
RE: Question #2
Rolleyes

Please form orderly ranks...

Semants on one sides

Poets on the other.

Consider

Is there such a thing as a 'semantic' license?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:37 PM
RE: Question #2
(29-11-2012 03:25 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Rolleyes

Please form orderly ranks...

Semants on one sides

Poets on the other.

Consider

Is there such a thing as a 'semantic' license?
Depends on the definition of "license". Tongue Smile

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:40 PM
RE: Question #2
(29-11-2012 06:37 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 03:25 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Rolleyes

Please form orderly ranks...

Semants on one sides

Poets on the other.

Consider

Is there such a thing as a 'semantic' license?
Depends on the definition of "license". Tongue Smile


In the case of the OP, I'll go with Semantic Licentiousness.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:42 PM
RE: Question #2
Free speech. This is the one subject that I am adamantly close-minded on. If you want to convince me that speech ought to be restricted, banned, or punished then you can go fuck yourself. Free speech is "sacred" and not to be tampered with.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
29-11-2012, 06:48 PM
RE: Question #2
(29-11-2012 03:11 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Realistically, everyone is going to see this word in a religious context; using it as a non-religious word will cause misunderstandings that are the fault of the person who chose the word, not the fault of the person who misunderstood the intent.

Logically, that's a bad idea and defeats the purpose of communication.

I prefer realism and logic to technicalities. Especially when reality provides perfectly logical alternatives that don't rely on technicalities to avoid poor communication.
Logically, words are (and have always been) defined by their usage. A good source for word usage is the dictionary rather than personal opinion. In my response above, I used it in respect to definition #5 here (synonymous with "inviolable").

The bible didn't instruct you to be the defender words. Just relax, friend. There's no good reason to fight with someone's secular use of a word with religious origins.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2012, 06:52 PM
RE: Question #2
Yay! Dictionary wars! Yet again!

How do people here feel about The Prime Directive: the species must survive. Failing that, some form of life must survive.

I suppose I hold this to be....er....important. Wink

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cardinal Smurf's post
29-11-2012, 11:07 PM
RE: Question #2
(29-11-2012 06:52 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Yay! Dictionary wars! Yet again!

How do people here feel about The Prime Directive: the species must survive. Failing that, some form of life must survive.

I suppose I hold this to be....er....important. Wink
Don't you worry mate. You supply the chicks, I'll ensure the continuity of the species Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
30-11-2012, 04:26 AM
RE: Question #2
(29-11-2012 02:27 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  It cannot be "just semantics". Language exists for a reason: communication between two or more people. If we all make up our own definitions of the words we use to communicate, nobody will ever understand each other - we might as well just grunt and growl.

Semantics is the study of meaning. Meaning is exactly what language is all about.

Yeah, I get it. I know what you meant. You were quite clear that you were deliberately and knowingly misusing the word "sacred".

But I emphatically disagree with any notion that it's OK for the speaker/writer to freely misuse words and leave it up to the listener/reader to interpret the originator's intent. Even if we use words that are "close enough" that we can correctly infer the intent, or even if we surround our misused word with a paragraph explaining exactly how we're misusing it, it's just being lazy or sloppy. Or both.

We can do better than that.

I strongly suggest that it is incumbent upon the speaker/writer to communicate clearly and accurately; it should never be upon the listener/reader to guess or interpret the intended meaning.

"Sacred" means "deserving of religious veneration". The word has a fairly clear definition. Using it for other meanings as long as it's close enough that we can expect our audience to correctly infer our intent is just wrong. It's your communication; find a better word that means what you really wanted to say. Cherished, revered, venerated, even important, are all words you could have used instead of sacred, and all would have been more accurate to what you wanted to say.

I'm not trying to pick on you.

I just strongly disagree that it's OK misuse words and then justify it by saying "it's just semantics".


Well, Im not convinced yet that I am using the wrong word.
I was raised to believe that The Universe/Nature which was The Goddess deserved religious veneration. I am not sure if I still believe that or if I have just been programmed into believing that, when I am out side in Nature I feel connected of course, I feel as if I am in a vast cathedral, I am in awe, I feel admiration and respect but I do not know if I feel it deserves religious reverence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2012, 04:31 AM
RE: Question #2
(29-11-2012 02:42 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-11-2012 02:00 PM)Irishdize Wrote:  Sacred to me means something we value highly that we should respect, protect, preserve.
The problem is that the word is almost exclusively being used in a religious context. It's similar to how you use the term "magic" in a way that has little to do with it's common usage. My point is that if you want to communicate a certain message, you shouldn't make up your own definitions, because that causes nothing but confusion. If you want us to tell you what things are important to us, why not just ask that? Why use a term that has mostly religious connotations?


I am sorry but I am using the word Magic as its properly understood by most Witches. Magic is using natural energies that exist inside us and in nature to bring about change. It does not matter if that change is emotional, mental or physical. change is change. Most Witches will tell you that Magic is not a supernatural agent, its natural.
Sacred= Veneration. I venerate myself as a Satanist, I am my own God. Like I said, I am not sure how I feel about Nature, I think part of how I feel is it being drilled into me as a child that The Universe is Sacred and part of me thinks I do believe that, I cant really tell, not sure how to tell the difference actually, lol as silly as that may sound.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: