Sharpshooter,

I love the nitwits.

> ....although this nitwit is a different nitwit from the other
> nitwit.    Christopher
>
>
>     The lack of definition of the word "vernacular" makes it a word
>     open to multiple interpretation - some of it unhelpful.
>
I've run across this definition quandry in comments on, "What is
post-modernism?" It beats me to figure out anything short of that some
words are used like atoms not always as a solid fixed particle, but as
some sort of localized gas, being that some words point only in a
direction and have no specificity of sign and signifier to them, but
that this character of a few of our words hardly makes them less useful,
say, than an atom of hydrogen.

>     I think we have to do better than use a word that is in such a
>     state of flux that it can mean too much.  One of the purposes of
>     language is to define things and avoid misunderstanding.
>
Another purpose of language is to confuse things and liberate our
spirits to the realization of new associations that will take us out of
ourselves, if not out of our circles. Though I agree fully on the need
for diligence in the selection of the most appropriate words as often as
we can endure the task.

>     Woolly words like "vernacular", unless used in their original and
>     quite precise terms, do not advance debate but obscure it and, in
>     communication with those who are outside our little circle, can
>     just lead to simple and damaging misunderstanding.
>
What circle are we in? I feel damaged. Considering it is winter I'm
curious what is wrong with woolly? Why not fuzzy?

][<

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>