Re: terms

Errol Back-Cunningham (
26 Sep 1996 16:44:45 GMT

In <52e5ku$> (David Lloyd-Jones)

>> David - these disorder are defined in terms of the views and
>> of the adherents to particular camps of philosophy. If you had the
>> you would look back on the views and terms espoused by practioners
>> of mental health two hundred years ago and ask yourself why the
>> views and terms of the present generation should not be viewed in
>> pretty much the same way in two hundred years time - with amusement.
>The fact that people change their views on mental illness does not
>mean that it doesn't exist -- and doesn't give you an excuse for
>making up a definition out of thin air rather than looking it up in
>the dictionary.

According to my dictionary - your term 'schizoaffective' does
not exist - it is an invented term to describe a condition
which may be totally inaccurately defined and delineated to boot.

Today, as 200 years in the past, the words we use
>reflect our best efforts at expressing the truth

Perhaps you should add 'as we currently perceive it'

-- and while this
>effort can never achieve perfection this does not make it ridiculous.

Not at present perhaps - hindsight gives it that.

>What is ridiculous is your refusal to face up to the fact that you got
>caught in a stupid mistake.

On the contrary - my dictionary does not depict this term which
came into world-wide English usage when?

>Your "error" is the same kind of small time dopiness as that of the
>person who, when asked "Which way is State Street?" points at random
>rather than admitting they don't know.

You have not answered my question - What is the difference between
Oxford and Websters - and when the term came into general English
usage - schizoaffective. 'Affectation' is a noun in what language?