|
Honor
Oct 16, 2008 8:26:09 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 16, 2008 8:26:09 GMT -6
The name calling is a nice touch, hunkpapa, something to be recalled at need, but it isn't valid. Definition is very important. And since people feign respect for each other's honor they probably ought to know what it is so as not to be misled or have their criticisms deflected.
It's like the mostly fictional women who stuff their faces with candy all day while reading romance novels and who come to consider themselves authorities on the procedures of love and affairs and capable of ferreting out detail from biographies without having experienced any of it themselves. Honor is very big among the Miniver Cheevies in their various incarnations, because they read about it in various novels and non-fictions written by their number and become very insistent on an existence for it quite unsupported in history or by fact.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 16, 2008 12:49:47 GMT -6
Post by BrokenSword on Oct 16, 2008 12:49:47 GMT -6
Gordie - "...What's a good cinnamon for absurbic?..."
Cinnamon Delight can be good for what ails you. I have a picture of her dancing, but as I so recently crawled out of the hole I dug with the last picture I posted, I shall refrain from sharing it. AND, because I took the pledge to behave.
B(oy) S(cout)
...further, I'm not at all sure that 'honor' isn't one of those slippery words that cannot be fully defined to everyone's satisfaction, much like the word 'greed' envokes different images for different people.
The Samuari had a code of honor, unfathomable to many outside of their culture. The Western armies had theirs as well - variations are found there too - just as (believe it or not) many businessmen do today. All are different, and all are important to members of those various groups.
At one time men fought duels over a 'slight to their honor'. The complete and exact rules of 'honor' in their time have never been entirely clear to me. Today we would see most of them as downright stupid, but for them, apparently they were a matter of life and death. Literally.
What the 'honor of the Regiment' meant exactly, at the time of the RCOI, I may have an idea of, but probably am lacking in the neuances it would have included, and would tend to add my own present day notions to the mix. Bogus notions to the men at that time.
M
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 17, 2008 7:13:14 GMT -6
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 17, 2008 7:13:14 GMT -6
The name calling is a nice touch, hunkpapa, something to be recalled at need, but it isn't valid. Definition is very important. And since people feign respect for each other's honor they probably ought to know what it is so as not to be misled or have their criticisms deflected. It's like the mostly fictional women who stuff their faces with candy all day while reading romance novels and who come to consider themselves authorities on the procedures of love and affairs and capable of ferreting out detail from biographies without having experienced any of it themselves. Honor is very big among the Miniver Cheevies in their various incarnations, because they read about it in various novels and non-fictions written by their number and become very insistent on an existence for it quite unsupported in history or by fact.
Once again DC you have your terminology wrong and incidentally that should be "Hunk" papa not hunkpapa, as indeed on another thread hedgemony should be hegemony. But that is by the by. Name calling is direct and pointed, aimed as a deliberate insult at a person or persons. The references in my previous post were observations on the content of your prior post and a scenario it called to mind. You should be fully aware of the true nature of name calling as you have indulged yourself in that respect many times on these boards. I am sure you will recall your descriptions of all Irishmen as drunken fighters, indiscriminate bombers, trainers of terrorists, of a lower order than seals and in need of mongrel Scottish blood to improve their breeding stock. Then there is Keogh was a 'thug for hire' and a rapist. Now that is not only name calling it is denigrating an entire ethnic group and is unworthy of these boards. Furthermore, it is apparently acceptable for you to infer that I am a liar, merely because I did not refer a second time to the Oxford Thesaurus, but my comparatively mild observations about your post are unacceptable Your post quoted above is a prime example of your attempts to flannel your way out of admitting you have been prove wrong by using lofty sounding phraseology peppered with your regular references to such as Miniver Cheevies or Ward Churchill which are meant to impress the unwary with your apparent wide range of knowledge. That it fails is because you overlook the cardinal rule in writing English - keep it simple. Your awkward and complicated constructions, littered with irrelevant references are exactly the opposite of simple. What you need is some instruction on how to express yourself clearly in the English language and if only you hadn't alienated her, Elisabeth, who is far and away the most erudite purveyor of the English language on these boards, could have helped you enormously. As it is, why don't you follow your own advice 'Nobody has to acknowledge a post that supposedly offends them' or preferably stick to the AAO boards where you can argue with yourself to your heart's content.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 18, 2008 16:44:16 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 18, 2008 16:44:16 GMT -6
Well, let's see here.
In the multi-volume Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1991, on page xviii in volume 1, the editors explain how the definitions (sense of the words) are applied. "In exhibiting this in the dictionary, that sense is placed first that was actually the earliest in the language: the others follow in the orders in which they appear to have arisen."
On page 939, still the Oxford English Dictionary, volume XIV, page 939, the word semantic has listed, as its first two senses:
1. Relating to weather (noted with the symbol for obsolete). 2. relating to signification of meaning
The first meaning not obsolete is the same one Webster's gives as its first definition. They agree. A discussion over the meaning of a word is, by definition in two nations for whom English is the prime language, a semantic discussion. Ergo, to claim I took the one of many relevant meanings to support myself is bogus: I took the prime meaning; it was you who did not.
You didn't want a discussion about a word's meaning to become a semantic discussion, you posted. That makes zero sense. It would make zero sense if your friend, or Alistaire Cooke, or Samuel Johnson claimed it as well. That's the thrill of definitions.
The entire thread is posted as a discussion about the meaning of the word "honor." Remarkable how weak the response has been, given how often it appears.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 20, 2008 16:19:17 GMT -6
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 20, 2008 16:19:17 GMT -6
Well, let's see here. In the multi-volume Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1991, on page xviii in volume 1, the editors explain how the definitions (sense of the words) are applied. "In exhibiting this in the dictionary, that sense is placed first that was actually the earliest in the language: the others follow in the orders in which they appear to have arisen." On page 939, still the Oxford English Dictionary, volume XIV, page 939, the word semantic has listed, as its first two senses: 1. Relating to weather (noted with the symbol for obsolete). 2. relating to signification of meaning The first meaning not obsolete is the same one Webster's gives as its first definition. They agree. A discussion over the meaning of a word is, by definition in two nations for whom English is the prime language, a semantic discussion. Ergo, to claim I took the one of many relevant meanings to support myself is bogus: I took the prime meaning; it was you who did not. You didn't want a discussion about a word's meaning to become a semantic discussion, you posted. That makes zero sense. It would make zero sense if your friend, or Alistaire Cooke, or Samuel Johnson claimed it as well. That's the thrill of definitions. The entire thread is posted as a discussion about the meaning of the word "honor." Remarkable how weak the response has been, given how often it appears.
I entirely accept the quotes you give, but they don't change a thing. You just don't get it do you? All language, including English, is a living, changing thing, full of shades of meaning, subtle nuances according to context and developments over time that totally change the meaning of some words, such as 'terrific' which originally meant 'causing terror' but is now used to mean 'very good or fine'. English, being a mongrel tongue, is more complex than most languages with its etymology deriving from Greek, Latin, Old French, Old German and Old Norse, for example, and is therefore rich in possibility. To try and pin down almost any word, other than perhaps 'the' or 'a', to a rigid, one meaning only, definition, is doomed to failure, because English is fluid and unlike you, flexible. Taking the prime meaning of a word is acceptable in certain circumstances but to ignore all other possibilities is simply to be narrow-minded. That is why having a semantic discussion is pointless. If one person is determined that a word can have only one definition, what is the use of debating when the decision has already been made? As I have already said, the only sensible context for a discussion on 'honor' is to try and establish a concept of that word as applied to its uses on these boards. The response has been weak precisely because the majority of our posters are fully aware of your predilection to lecture and tendency to try and score trivial points rather than debate in a reasonable way. But of course, the great DC cannot concede gracefully or be sensible enough to accept that he does not have all the answers, especially where the English language is concerned. "Hunk" papa
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 21, 2008 11:05:40 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 21, 2008 11:05:40 GMT -6
Actually, hunkpapa, you're the one who claimed that "glory" and "honor" were virtually the same. You were the one who claimed and pushed the one definition. I claim that all glory is an honor, but all honor is not a glory. Not recondite, not prissy, not inaccurate.
I wanted a semantic discussion (it's why I started the thread) and force people to keep their definitions before them when they use these words; sort of unintentionally put the same chains on that Gray did (that wasn't my goal and beyond my ability, but in a sense it serves the purpose) and watch so many of the mutual exclusives collapse.
So, in today's lesson, let's see what the Oxford Dictionary - your initial source, supposedly - says about honor and glory.
In Volume VII, page 357, honour (honor) is
1. high respect, esteem, or reverence, accorded to exalted worth or rank; deferential admiration or approbation
a. as felt or entertained....... (on for a while.....)
b. as rendered or shown..........(on again for a while....)
c. as received, gained, or enjoyed; GLORY (my capitals), renown, fame, credit, reputation, good name
In Volume VI, page 590
Glory, after its first obsolescent and ancient definition, gets to the second definition, the prime 'sense' now in use....
2. exalted....praise, HONOUR, or admiration.
All glory is an honor. All honor is hardly a glory.
When I first heard Noam Chomsky back in the 1960's lecturing on similar issues, it made a big impression. Glad you've had a chance to read some of him.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 21, 2008 11:16:46 GMT -6
Post by crzhrs on Oct 21, 2008 11:16:46 GMT -6
Anyone seen the movie Paths of GLORY with Kirk Douglas?
If not . . . you should . . . it explains clearly about "glory"
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 21, 2008 14:43:09 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 21, 2008 14:43:09 GMT -6
No. No movies. The horse dies, is all.
Correction: I was thinking of Lonely Are the Brave. Disregard. What I should have said, but did not, was:
No. No movies.
The real life story of the French mutiny is better. Rather difficult to see why it didn't happen with the Brits as well. Happened in various degrees to the Russians, French, Germans, Italians, and Austrians. Idiot officers yelling "attack!" to no known purpose then or now.
The U.S. wasn't in long enough to have it as an issue.
Also, read about the Nissei (sp? Japanese-American)soldiers in Italy in WWII who were used as cattle to burnish an officer's record. Didn't mutiny, wouldn't be blamed today if they had. Tough, tough bunch of men.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 21, 2008 15:59:54 GMT -6
Post by wild on Oct 21, 2008 15:59:54 GMT -6
A unit of the British army the Connaught Rangers mutinied as did the officer corps in the Curragh.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 21, 2008 16:18:27 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 21, 2008 16:18:27 GMT -6
Neither event is relevant to World War One, the period of the movie in discussion. Sassoon would have been a better choice.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 22, 2008 6:41:03 GMT -6
Post by wild on Oct 22, 2008 6:41:03 GMT -6
Etaples as per google.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 23, 2008 9:42:54 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 23, 2008 9:42:54 GMT -6
Sorta, but different. The Etaples affair was mostly over Anzac's bitterness from Gallipoli and the British assumption they were to be ordered about by Brits, rather than the utter depression of trench warfare which, in any case, the Anzacs hadn't accumulated yet. The other mutinies stemmed primarily from the mass realization of the utter stupidity of trench warfare, albeit with 'incidents' that set them off.
After the Somme, it's amazing the British Army didn't hang Haig and refuse any more of that stupidity.
In 1918, the Germans WON the military issues in their early offensive and the men STILL collapsed because they were exhausted and dingy from four years of constant stupidity. The German Army dissolved in plunder and drunkeness, which is the primary reason they claimed they hadn't been defeated, but betrayed. And the German nation believed it and hence was up for the second round. That's why the Allies in 1945 wanted the defeated to KNOW they'd been defeated.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 23, 2008 14:38:38 GMT -6
Post by wild on Oct 23, 2008 14:38:38 GMT -6
That's why the Allies in 1945 wanted the defeated to KNOW they'd been defeated. Sherman had the same view ,holding that the confederates army and society were guilty.A view I hold in relation to the war in Iraq and the society which supports that war.
|
|
|
Honor
Oct 23, 2008 15:32:48 GMT -6
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 23, 2008 15:32:48 GMT -6
Actually, hunkpapa, you're the one who claimed that "glory" and "honor" were virtually the same. You were the one who claimed and pushed the one definition. I claim that all glory is an honor, but all honor is not a glory. Not recondite, not prissy, not inaccurate. I wanted a semantic discussion (it's why I started the thread) and force people to keep their definitions before them when they use these words; sort of unintentionally put the same chains on that Gray did (that wasn't my goal and beyond my ability, but in a sense it serves the purpose) and watch so many of the mutual exclusives collapse. So, in today's lesson, let's see what the Oxford Dictionary - your initial source, supposedly - says about honor and glory. In Volume VII, page 357, honour (honor) is 1. high respect, esteem, or reverence, accorded to exalted worth or rank; deferential admiration or approbation a. as felt or entertained....... (on for a while.....) b. as rendered or shown..........(on again for a while....) c. as received, gained, or enjoyed; GLORY (my capitals), renown, fame, credit, reputation, good name In Volume VI, page 590 Glory, after its first obsolescent and ancient definition, gets to the second definition, the prime 'sense' now in use.... 2. exalted....praise, HONOUR, or admiration. All glory is an honor. All honor is hardly a glory. When I first heard Noam Chomsky back in the 1960's lecturing on similar issues, it made a big impression. Glad you've had a chance to read some of him. School ReportName: R. McClod a.k.a. Dark Clod This pupil has at best only a slight grasp of the English language. He seems unable to apprehend the import of what others have written, or understand the meaning of 'synonymous'. He has neither the wit to absorb the clear explanations given nor the wisdom to avoid displaying his ignorance by simply rehashing his previously discredited arguments. He shows some promise at times but then dispels that notion by reducing his arguments to the level of kindergarten raspberry blowing. He purports to have listened to Noam Chomsky some years ago but his responses indicate that he learned nothing from that language theorist. Marking this pupil's work presents a dilemma as logic dictates an F for 'foolish', but as that seems too high a mark, I for 'inane' appears to be more appropriate.
|
|
walkingstar
New Member
Life is but a dream...
Posts: 39
|
Honor
Oct 23, 2008 18:07:24 GMT -6
Post by walkingstar on Oct 23, 2008 18:07:24 GMT -6
"Hunk" Papa,
Amen. God bless you.
|
|