2 ms·

Well, in this case, if one person says it does, and another doesn't see that it does, shouldn't the latter conclude they are likely missing something? If I say

Well, in this case, if one person says it does, and another doesn't see that it does, shouldn't the latter conclude they are likely missing something? If I say 'this truck hauls 2 tons up Mount Rainier' and evidently I do that, and you don't think so, wouldn't the rational conclusion be that the truck does it and you were unaware? I and many others, for centuries, have used etymology to understand meaning and history. Don't tell me it doesn't work - I do it, just like driving that truck. You can't do everything, we all miss out on most things, but you are missing out! :)

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> in this case, if one person says it does, and another doesn't see that it does, shouldn't the latter conclude they are likely missing something? In this case, we already have all the facts, so there's no reason to talk about what's likely. Etymology is not informative as to meaning, and therefore cannot help anyone learn how a word is currently used. You are advocating for the Etymological Fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy ), but the name of the position you're taking should be a hint about whether it's actually a valid viewpoint.