|
|
Re: terms
Errol Back-Cunningham (ebc@ix.netcom.com(Errol)
26 Sep 1996 10:42:19 GMT
In <52cm6g$clo@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
writes:
>
>ebc@ix.netcom.com(Errol Back-Cunningham) wrote:
>
>>In <52a4d6$ql6@news.inforamp.net> dlj@inforamp.net (David
Lloyd-Jones)
>>writes:
>>>Errol,
>>>
>>>You're confusing the noun with the verb. You've been caught faking
>>>it. If you don't have the balls to make a lighthearted apology, at
>>>least have the sense to shut up.
>>>
>> My dear sir - you appear to (highly technical psychobabble):
>> have gone completely bananas.
>> My OXFORD English dictionary defines 'affect' as a verb - it
>> defines 'affectation' as a noun - meaning 'pretence -esp in
>> behaviour' - I'm afraid you seem to suffering from delusions of
>> a linguistic nature...
>
>Nope. The problem is either you haven't read far enough in your
>dictionary, or you're using a grade school Oxford which defines 1200
>common words in 32 point type.
>
>Here's the relevant entry from Webster's: "psychol: the conscious
>subjective aspect of an emotion considered apart from bodily changes."
>
><stupid insults snipped>
David, David, calm down - I'm only trying to help you. You have to
come to terms with this. What is the difference between the Oxford
dictionary and Websters? You really have to confront this and realise
that there are subtle yet fundamental differences, and there is
no need to get so worked up. We are all your friends here.
Errol
|