The Modernization of Emacs

[David Kastrup]

I expect that either way you split this hair, using "free" in the
sense of "possessing liberty" is still going to be quite reasonable.


I have never claimed equivalence. What I have made claims about are
the properties of one of the meanings of a word. Specifically, my
claim is that "free" is a reasonable description of some one or some
thing that has been "liberated".

But it suggests that the natural state would be the unfree state.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

But it suggests that the natural state would be the unfree state.

Would this be a good thing? Would it be a bad thing? What is your
point?

Cheers
Bent D

 

[rjack]

Webster? WEBSTER. . . ?

Whatever happened to the Oxford English Dictionary ?
Seems to me the English have always spoken the definitive
English. . . that's why they call it ENGLISH.

 

[Lew]

Would this be a good thing? Would it be a bad thing? What is your
point?

"There's no easy way to be free."

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Freedom is not natural. It must be defended.

 

[Bent C Dalager]

Webster? WEBSTER. . . ?

Whatever happened to the Oxford English Dictionary ?

It suffers from not being in my "dict" installation I suppose.

Seems to me the English have always spoken the definitive
English. . . that's why they call it ENGLISH.

Unfortunately, these days English almost always means American English
and if you want British English you have to specify that explicitly.

But I don't actually think that the difference is significant to the
current controversy surrounding the interpretation of the word "free".

Cheers
Bent D

 

[Lew]

Webster? WEBSTER. . . ?

Whatever happened to the Oxford English Dictionary ?
Seems to me the English have always spoken the definitive
English. . . that's why they call it ENGLISH.

What is in a name? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

 

[dan]

Symbolism over substance has become the mantra
of the young.

"Symbolism: The practice of representing things by means of symbols or
of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events, or
relationships."

One might even suggest that all written language is based on the use of
words as symbols.

"Substance: (2)
a. Essential nature; essence.
b. Gist; heart."

"Mantra: A sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or
incantation, such as an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a
syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities."

Perhaps the young people you're referring to are not the same young
people that I know, because I've never even heard of a religion whose
object of reverence is meta-level analysis of language.

Tell me, do you know what "hyperbole" means?


-dan "or 'rhetorical'"

 

[rjack]

>Tell me, do you know what "hyperbole" means?

Betcha' Ludwig Wittgenstein coulda' told ya'!

 

[George Neuner]

Apparantly, you missed the part where I referred to the 1913 edition
of Webster. I have kept it in the quoted text above for your
convenience. I can assure you that 1913 is both more than 30 years ago
/and/ it is before 1980, in case that was in doubt.

Cheers
Bent D

I didn't miss it. Your post was just an opportunity to rant.

George

 

[George Neuner]

"Symbolism: The practice of representing things by means of symbols or
of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events, or
relationships."

One might even suggest that all written language is based on the use of
words as symbols.

"Substance: (2)
a. Essential nature; essence.
b. Gist; heart."

"Mantra: A sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or
incantation, such as an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a
syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities."

Perhaps the young people you're referring to are not the same young
people that I know, because I've never even heard of a religion whose
object of reverence is meta-level analysis of language.

The Christian Bible says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1. Theologians and
philosophers have been writing about it for quite a few centuries.


Or, how about politics? Another example from the Judeo-Christian
Bible (that is, from the Old Testament), politicking was the sin that
resulted in Lucifer's fall from God's grace.
[Yeah, I know the official story is that Lucifer's sin was envy.
Trust me ... I was there. God didn't have a clue until Lucifer went
and organized the rally to protest God's policy on human souls (back
then God trusted his angels and was not in the habit of reading their
minds). He didn't find out that Lucifer was behind the protests until
after Michael's police units had put down the riots. When it was all
over, God didn't care that Lucifer had been envious or prideful or
lustful ... He was simply pissed that Lucifer had protested His
policies.

Shortly after He outlawed beer in Heaven because many of the rioters
had been drunk. Then He started a program of wire-tapping without
warrants to spy on innocent angels. I was ready to leave when He
closed the pubs, the illegal wire-taps just clinched it.]

Tell me, do you know what "hyperbole" means?

Yes I do.


George

 

[Tim X]

I don't think knowing the meaning of a word is being pedantic.
"Freed" is derived from "free" but has a different, though associated,
meaning. Words have meaning despite the many attempts by Generation X
to assert otherwise. Symbolism over substance has become the mantra
of the young.

The English language has degenerated significantly in the last 30
years. People (marketers in particular) routinely coin ridiculous new
words and hope they will catch on. I remember seeing a documentary
(circa 1990?) about changes in the English language. One part of the
program was about the BBC news and one of its editors, whom the staff
called the "protector of language", who checked the pronunciation of
words by the news anchors. The thing that struck me about this story
was the number of BBC newspeople who publicly admitted that they could
hardly wait for this man to retire so they could write and speak the
way they wanted rather than having to be "correct".

Dictionaries used to be the arbiters of the language - any word or
meaning of a word not found in the dictionary was considered a
colloquial (slang) use. Since the 1980's, an entry in the dictionary
has become little more than evidence of popularity as the major
dictionaries (OED, Webster, Cambridge, etc.) will now consider any
word they can find used in print.

Language is not a static 'set in stone' thing. It changes and while some
may find the changes unwelcome, it will change anyway. Although I have no
evidence to support it, I suspect that 'free' wold have been more commonly
associated with meanings other than 'free of cost' pre-capitalism. Checking
a few dictionaries seems to indicate that its meaning along the lines of
free from restriction, control, freedom, liberated etc is more in keeping
with its origins than an interpretation of free of cost and that even in
that context, it meant free from the restriction of having to be paid for.

The bottom line is that free has different meanings and if a group decides
to use that term and at the same time specify which context it means it to
apply, then I think that is reasonable. Ask your wife what she thinks is
meant by a free variable and she may say that it is a variable that has no
cost (as in free beer), This doesn't mean that its use is wrong or
incorrect.

I once asked RMS why he chose free, given the ambiguity it would cause,
over alternatives, such as freedom, liberated or even unrestricted. His
response was that at the time, free as in freedom was the concious
association they had and other associations and resulting ambiguity did not
occur to them until it was too late. This seems reasonable enough. If your
focus was to ensure that software was free from what you perceived to be
restrictions that would ultimately reduce your individual freedom, then
free fits. The fact this has led to confusion amongst consumers in a
capitalist based economy probably says as much about modern values and the
changing balance between consumerism compared to freedom than anything
else.

Tim

"The Americans are identical to the British in all respects except, of
course, language." Oscar Wilde

Giving English to an American is like giving sex to a child. He knows it's
important but he doesn't know what to do with it. Adam Cooper (19th
century)

"We (the British and Americans) are two countries separated by a common
language. G.B. Shaw

The Englishman commented to the American about the "curious"
way in which he pronounced so many words, such as schedule
(pronounced shedule). The American thought about it for a few
moments, then replied, "Perhaps it's because we went to
different shools!"

Englishman: Its maths not math because it is short for mathematics
American: Then you would say "Maths are fun"?

 

[Lew]

"The Americans are identical to the British in all respects except, of
course, language." Oscar Wilde

"We (the British and Americans) are two countries separated by a common
language. G.B. Shaw

There is a well-known saying: Two nations separated by a common language. However, this phrase doesn't seem to have been positively recorded in this form by anyone.

In The Canterville Ghost Oscar Wilde wrote:

/We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language/

In a 1951 book of quotations, and without attributing a source, George Bernard Shaw was credited with saying:

/England and America are two countries separated by the same language/

Even Dylan Thomas had his say in a radio talk in the early 50s:

/[European writers and scholars in America are] up against the barrier of a common language/

But where the original phrase came from, nobody knows, and it is probably simply incorrectly quoted.

<http://yedda.com/questions/origin_famous_sentence_quotations_8625651351715/>

 

[John W. Kennedy]

> Although I have no
evidence to support it, I suspect that 'free' wold have been more commonly
associated with meanings other than 'free of cost' pre-capitalism.

C. S. Lewis has a whole chapter on "free", "liberal", "ελευθεÏιος",
"frank", etc., in "Studies in Words".



--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

 

[lhb]

While I agree that the word "free" implies "free of monetary cost" to
many people societies, that is by no means set in stone (talk to native
americans, blacks, jews, palestinians, etc. about the word free, see
what they have to say).

Words are defined by popular usage. In popular usage, the meaning of free
as an adjective depends on the context. If the adjective is applied to
people, it means the opposite of slavery or imprisonment. If it's applied
to something other than people, it means free as in beer.

For example, a dog with no owner, wandering freely (adverb), would not be
called a free dog (adjective), to mean possessing freedom. Free dog means
free as in beer. Likewise, in popular usage, free software means free as
in beer. People who use it with a different meaning are vainly trying to
change its meaning. But the meanings of words can't be arbitrarily
changed, just by dictating different meanings. The meaning has to be
adopted by popular usage, which free-as-in-GPL software has not been.

Therefore, I propose, using dog freedom as our logic, we call it stray
software.

 

[Lew]

Words are defined by popular usage. In popular usage, the meaning of free
as an adjective depends on the context. If the adjective is applied to
people, it means the opposite of slavery or imprisonment. If it's applied
to something other than people, it means free as in beer.

Unless it's applied to open-source software, which by popular usage has "free"
mean "free of restrictions on use."

Words are also defined by technical usage. Would you claim that "thread"
means only a yarn of fabric?

For example, a dog with no owner, wandering freely (adverb), would not be
called a free dog (adjective), to mean possessing freedom. Free dog means
free as in beer.

"I was walking my dog, but he got free of the leash. Now he's running free
all over the neighborhood."

The "popular" usage of "free" with respect to open-source software is "free as
in speech", so your argument favors the FSF on this one.

 

[David Kastrup]

Unless it's applied to open-source software, which by popular usage
has "free" mean "free of restrictions on use."

Words are also defined by technical usage. Would you claim that
"thread" means only a yarn of fabric?


"I was walking my dog, but he got free of the leash. Now he's running
free all over the neighborhood."

Uh, neither of which contains "free dog".

 

[Lew]

Uh, neither of which contains "free dog".

"He ... free"

 

[Lew]

"He ... free"

Sigh. It's "free" as an adjective, referring to the dog, thus refuting the
claim that "free" applied to "dog" must mean "free of charge". The claim
isn't limited to just the phrase "free dog" literally, but the application of
the adjective to dogs. I provided a counterexample.

 

[Lew]

Sigh. It's "free" as an adjective, referring to the dog, thus refuting
the claim that "free" applied to "dog" must mean "free of charge". The
claim isn't limited to just the phrase "free dog" literally, but the
application of the adjective to dogs. I provided a counterexample.

But if you want to be so ridiculously anal about it:

"I have a caged dog and one I let wander. My neighbor got mad and shot the
free dog."

There, are you satisfied? Hmm?

 

[Damien Kick]

but does not "free beer" nearly always come with a catch or implied
obligation?

I had been trying to find a good Nietzsche quote about the role of debt
in the relationship of a child to his or her parents but I could not
seem to find a good one. I did, however, find what I think to be an
interesting secondary source
<http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-09-20-neilson-en.html>:

<blockquote>
For Nietzsche, debt was linked to the problem of promising and
forgetting. It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of the
etymological play that underlies his association of debts (Schulden)
with guilt (Schuld). As is well known, the Second Essay of On the
Genealogy of Morals argues that the feeling of guilt, of personal
obligation, has its origin in the contractual relationship between
creditor and debtor. "It was here", Nietzsche writes, "that one person
first measured himself against another". And he continues:

Perhaps our word "man" (manas) still expresses something of precisely
this feeling of self-satisfaction: man designated himself as the
creature that measures values, evaluates and measures, as the "valuating
animal as such".[1]

How today are we to understand these claims and Nietzsche's extension of
them into arguments about the role of debt in the relations between
parents and children or between man and the deity?
</blockquote>

Beer helps to eliminate debt by promoting forgetfulness.