3 ms·
> What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whet
by himinlomax 5y ago
> What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago.
It had that meaning a thousand years ago. Nah, 2000 years ago ("regula"). You're saying that it meant something for a millennium, started meaning something else, and then went back to the original meaning -- all in good time to support your opinion. How convenient. And without any evidence. The rest of what you quote supports my interpretation, not yours, which is just weird.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> You're saying that it meant something for a millennium, started meaning something else, and then went back to the original meaning -- all in good time to support your opinion. How convenient. No, you're the one making claims about the meaning in 1066. What I'm saying is that the meaning of the word that originated in the 17th century ( https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate ) had not, by the 18th century, fully displaced the earlier meaning. That the displacement is complete today is meaningless.
- himinlomax 5y agoYou link says the word entered the English language in 1620, with that very meaning. Do you understand how citing references work? You're supposed to link to resources supporting your interpretation. Hope this helped.
- thaumasiotes 5y agoThat link traces the word to the early 15th century. It says that the meaning "to govern by restriction" dates back to the 1620s, which is the early 17th century. But I wouldn't conclude that there was a 200-odd year period during which the word was in use, but had no meaning.